Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Hataway v. PIAS, Inc.
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11704
The plaintiff, a cocktail waitress, brought suit against her employer under the ADEA alleging that she was terminated in an effort to rid the employer of older employees and promote a more youthful image. In order to show that her termination was discriminatory, the plaintiff was required to provide evidence in one of three ways: (1) through the use of direct evidence of discriminatory intent (2) through statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination or (3) by circumstantial evidence as set forth in McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The plaintiff was unable to show direct evidence or statistical proof of discrimination. Circumstantial evidence of discrimination requires the plaintiff to show that (1) she was a member of the group of persons aged forty to seventy protected by the ADEA, (2) she was subjected to adverse employment action (3) she was qualified to perform the job from which she was rejected and (4) she was replaced by a substantially younger person or similarly situated younger employees were treated more favorably than her. While the plaintiff met the first three requirements, she was unable to show that she was replaced by a person substantially younger that similarly situated younger employees were treated more favorably than her. Although the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination as noted above, the court continued their analysis to find that the employer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff. The employer
Topic(s)
