Research Paper: Application of Appellate Cases on Fact Situation
Name:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Research Paper: Application of Appellate Cases on Fact Situation
Fact Situation: Person A vs. Company C
The case scenario is about an employee, Person A, who brought action against the employer, Company B, for wrongful termination. Person A worked in the manufacturing company for twenty-three years as a quality control inspector. Within the course of employment, he was one of the top-performing individuals and never received a complaint from management. In 2017, the company merged with another and became Company C. Company C transferred employees to different departments. However, Person A retained his original position, but it was under new management. At the time of the merger, Person A was 51 years. His job required a lot of movement, but this never hindered his performance because he was physically fit.
The new manager hired an assistant quality control inspector to help Person A with his duties since the company was bigger. The manager was thirty-seven years old at the time. According to Person A, the new manager constantly commended the assistant on his performance. However, he had a few incidents with person A. For instance, the manager put him under disciplinary in early 2018 for failing to perform quality assurance on 200 electronic products in time. Person A passed the deadline with a day. He also claims that this was common when he had to inspect many products, which was never an issue. The client also accepted the products and paid for everything. In mid-2018, Person A got an arm injury while playing with his granddaughter. The doctor mentioned it would take a month to heal, which led to Person A taking a leave of absence.
During his leave, the assistant quality control inspector performed Person A’s duties. After one month, his arm was not fully healed, and he requested an extension. The manager refused, saying that it would affect the company. He offered Person A to return to work and promised to assign less tedious work. However, the manager asked him to perform quality assurance on other electronic products, and Person A took longer than anticipated. The client agreed to pay 75% of the purchasing price, and if not, he would reject all the products. Person A received a termination notice a few days later with regard to his incompetence.
Person A is seeking action against the company for wrongful termination based on age discrimination. According to the plaintiff, the manager mistreated him ever since the merger occurred. He also asked Person A to go back to work despite having an injury and promised to offer less tedious jobs. His termination was based on the pretext of age discrimination because his error was common in the organization. There was no adverse action before the merger. The manager was more friendly to the assistant because he could work faster than Person A. However, Person A performed his duties diligently. The customers also accepted the products in both instances. According to the defendant, the new merger meant that some things changed. The new company did not allow such errors and only fired Person A because of his performance.
Case 1: Sitwell vs. City of Williams
The plaintiff brought action against the defendant for violating the First Amendment, which prohibits age discrimination. The plaintiff claims that the termination was unlawful because he was planning on testifying against the employer in an age discrimination case. However, the ADEA does not directly protect individuals who plan to testify against their employers. Instead, the court considered this a retaliation case. Furthermore, the employer claimed that the termination was because the employee operated beyond his duties and responsibilities. The district courts granted motion to the plaintiff. However, the appellate court offered a dissenting opinion.
The ADEA does not offer much protection for retaliation victims. Therefore, plaintiffs usually bear a higher burden of proof. First, they need to establish a prima facie case that the employer violated the ADEA and public policy to avoid summary judgment against the employer. The ADEA also precludes certain damages arising from retaliation suits, for example, the impact on mental health. The appellant failed to prove a discriminatory case under the ADEA but made a strong case under the first amendment on equal protection. The evidence provided by the appellant was inadequate and insufficient to prove an age discrimination case. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence under the ADEA, but protected under the first amendment, hence the difference in opinion by the court of appeal/
In cases of employees seeking action against age discrimination, they need to establish a prima facie case. Person A needs to show the presumption that his termination was a result of his age. Therefore, his age should be a direct or indirect reason for his termination. An example includes proving that his termination was unreasonable, as stated in Sitwell vs. the City of Williams. The plaintiff needed is not granted equal protection under the ADEA for testifying in an age discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff also needs to show material of fact to show that age was an issue with the employer. For instance, he can indicate incidents of the manager favoring the assistant based on his age.
Case 2: Charles Merrick vs. Hilton Worlwide Inc
The appellant brought action against the employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The appellant was an operations director before his termination. However, the company introduced a reduction program that led to the elimination of Merrick’s position. At the time, he was sixty years old. The appellant had the burden to establish a prima facie case on age discrimination before the court, which he successfully did. The facts provided by the appellant indicated that his responsibilities were not eliminated despite the introduction of the reduction-in-force (RIF). The company could also offer him an assistant director position. The appellant served the defendant for 19 years and claimed that his position’s elimination had a discriminative motive. However, the defendant alleged they had proper reasons to lay off the appellant. First, he had the second-highest salary in the hotel, and it was downsizing. Furthermore, the employer did not consider high-guest contact. Other departments also suffered the impact of downsizing and were understaffed. Therefore, the company had no option but to eliminate his position.
If an employee’s position is eliminated under the RIF, no other individual replaces them. An individual can establish a prima facie case by proving that the organization still uses his skills and services in other job positions. Under the FEHA, downsizing is not an excuse to eliminate employees under the protected age group, that is, above forty years. They must provide a sufficient reason for laying off an employee despite downsizing. Furthermore, the reasons for laying off these employees have to be non-discriminatory. The court ruled in favor of the employer because the appellant failed to provide adequate proof for discrimination. For instance, there was no pretext, and the assistant director position was already filled. Furthermore, the hotel laid off other employees above forty years, and it also suffered an economic downturn.
After establishing a prima facie case, Person A can use Merrick vs. Hilton to lay his argument’s foundation. First, the plaintiff can prove that a younger person replaced him after his departure. He can also show that his errors did not affect the company adversely. The plaintiff needs to prove discrimination. For instance, the manager requested him to go back to work despite his injury. Also, the manager did not keep his end of the promise. Person A can also show that other employees, preferably younger, made similar errors, which did not affect their job.
Case 3: Gilberto Santillan vs. USA Waste of California
The case was under an appellate court regarding wrongful termination in relation to age discrimination. The plaintiff was an employee for more than thirty years and worked as a truck driver. Before his termination, the USA waste of California used his contribution to society to renew their license. Later on, the company hired a new manager who was not on good terms with the appellant. First, the manager brought disciplinary action six times against the plaintiff, which never happened in the course of employment. The manager fired Santillan later on the basis that he caused four accidents within a year. To get his job back, Santillan needed to pass various tests, which he did. However, the employer refused to reinstate his job.
The court used McDonnell’s framework to determine whether the case indicated indirect evidence of age discrimination. The first question was whether the employee diligently performed his duties despite his work. Numerous households from California beach defended him by praising his service. The second determination was whether the employer was in violation of public policy. He requested the appellant to take various tests, and some were not necessary under the IRCA. However, the appellant passed all the tests and never got his job back. Therefore, the court established that the defendant did not have a legitimate reason to terminate the appellant.
Santillan vs. USA Waste is essential in Person A vs. Company C because it lays a foundation for indirect discrimination. The company’s action might not directly imply discrimination. However, there might be a pretext to terminate Person A based on his age. This includes: favoring younger employees, Person A’s performance history, working while sick, and the manager giving him exerting jobs and that his errors did not affect the company. However, the defendant can also state that the termination resulted from the merger, which aimed for perfect performance. Using Santillan vs. USA Waste, Person A has a stronger case because he worked in the company for years and was never questioned about these errors before the merger.
Take-Home Message
The cases provided indicate the need for performance improvement measures in organizations. First, companies should indicate any new rules and policies in writing whenever there is a change (Alzyoud, 2018). For instance, Santillan’s issues in the workplace began after the introduction of a new manager. Companies can not change rules every time they introduce a new manager. However, they can revisit the old ones to jog employees’ memories and ensure they perform according to the management’s expectation. Merrick’s case is also relatively similar because it included resizing the company.
Companies should also offer equal opportunities to employees without direct or indirect discriminative practices (Alzyoud, 2018). In Merrick vs. Hilton, the court depicted that the plaintiff’s termination did not arise from discrimination. The company lay off employees of all ages and departments because it was downsizing. The same case should apply to offering employees opportunities. The case of Santillan was different because he underwent different tests that were not necessary. If the company were not discriminatory, it would make other employees undertake similar tests. Employers should also provide employees reasonable notice before termination and provide adequate evidence even if the employment is at-will.
References
Alzyoud, A. (2018). The Influence of Human Resource Management Practices on Employee Work Engagement. Foundations of Management 10(1).