Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Wright v. Amsouth Bancorporation
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. c275
The plaintiff was 54 years old when hired by Amsouth. The plaintiff was advised to seek other employment opportunities when questions arose as to his performance. An internal memorandum subsequently announced the hiring of a 29 year old woman with nearly the same title as the plaintiff. The plaintiff suspected age discrimination. On December 1, 1999, the plaintiff was advised to meet with human resources to set his final date of employment. Although there had been prior discussions indicating the possibility that the plaintiff might lose his job, the plaintiff asserted that he did not unequivocally understand he was being terminated until he was told to meet with human resources. The plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 28, 2000. The appellate court found that it was error to grant patrial summary judgment to the defendant employer based on a late filing of the EEOC complaint where material issues of fact remained as to whether an unequivocal communication of termination had been effectively communicated to the plaintiff (December 1, 1999, or previously). The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the state law fraud claim alleging failure on the part of the employer to make remuneration in connection with a management incentive program, where the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing that the employer intended to deceive him. The appellate court also found that there had been no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery of all word processing files created, modified and/or accessed by, or on behalf of five Amsouth employees over a two and one half year period, where such a request was overly broad and burdensome. The plaintiff also showed no reasonable showing of relevance for the requested discovery.
Topic(s)
