Say you have an older employee who’s resisting change. What if a management consultant suggests that you find “young, energetic” people to take over? A court ruling last week sends a clear warning: Be careful who you listen to for advice … and where you write it down.
Case in Point: Dean Inman was a 58-year-old VP of technology at a Virginia manufacturing company. Inman had worked for 17 years but he butted heads with the new company president. He failed to adopt the president’s approach or support some of his decisions. The president gave Inman a negative review.
At one point, the president and another executive met with a management consultant for a strategic review. The consultant suggested the company enlist young, energetic “future people.” The president noted the phrase “young, energ[etic]” on a paper napkin.
Soon after that meeting, the president fired Inman, telling Inman that he didn’t meet the desired “profile” of a technical leader, and that the company needed a “more energetic person” to lead Inman's department. A 45-year-old employee who had been the vice president of operations replaced Inman.
Inman sued for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). As evidence that age bias was the true firing reason, Inman pointed to his bonuses and the high praise he received at a company meeting just a few weeks before the termination.
The company stuck to its claim that Inman was fired for poor performance. And it argued that the president’s napkin note was meaningless because it only reflected the views of the consultant, who was discussing general personnel matters and had no role in Inman’s termination. (Inman v. Klockner Pentaplast of Am. Inc., 4th Cir., 10/22/09)
Get practical strategies and best practices to avoid employee lawsuits with this audio training hosted by Mindy Chapman herself! Curing The Lawsuit Epidemic — with Mindy Chapman's HR 'Booster Shot'
What happened next and what lessons can be learned?
The company tried to get the case tossed out on summary judgment, but the court disagreed. It sided with Inman and sent the case to trial. The court pointed to the napkin and said it will be up to the jury to read it and “decide what (the consultant) meant, and, more importantly, what (the president) understood the reference to mean when he wrote it down and whether (the president) adopted the goal of having ‘young, energetic' workers as his own.”
The ruling also noted that “the jury could also conclude that the deficiencies the employer claimed existed in Inman's work were exaggerated to cover up the age-based motivation for the termination.”
Mindy explains—in her trademark entertaining style—what the EEOC is targeting and how your organization can fly under the Commission’s radar, in the audio recording Curing The Lawsuit Epidemic — with Mindy Chapman’s HR ‘Booster Shot.’
Mindy is one of the top-rated speakers at HR conferences across the country. And this briefing was rated as one of the top sessions at this year’s Society for Human Resource Management’s annual conference. Get the audio now...
3 Lessons Learned … Without Going to Court
1. Select consultants wisely. Make sure they understand the EEO laws so you don’t receive unlawful guidance.
2. Keep it real. If Inman wasn’t performing up to expectations then don’t offer bonuses or praise.
3. Be careful what you write. Even a dirty napkin can come back to clean your clock.
Mindy will share her employement-law expertise about:
Download the mp3 now!
- Where employers are most vulnerable to employee lawsuits in today's economy—and how you should build your defenses immediately.
- The essential changes to policies and procedures needed to avoid employment liability in 2009 and 2010.
- The latest legal developments that every HR professional should be aware of
- Practical lessons you can apply today from 10 recent lawsuit rulings.
- The meaning of “DITO DITA” and why you should post this motto on your wall.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- 10 Secrets to an Effective Performance Review
- OSHA makes big changes to fatality, injury reporting requirements
- Conducting online background checks? Beware the pitfalls
- $27.5 million settlement in law firm's age discrimination suit
- Retaliation case doesn't have to rely on specific bias claim