62 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1336, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,573 Walter P. Purcell, Cross-Appellant v. Seguin State Bank and Trust Company, Cross-Appellee
999 F.2d 950 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1993
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A 60-year-old bank manager was fired and replaced by a 37-year-old employee. The court found this was age discrimination under federal law. While the jury's decision to award damages was upheld, the court reduced the penalty by removing the "willfulness" finding and related extra damages. The case shows that replacing older workers with younger ones—even if the employer claims performance reasons—can violate age discrimination laws.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't fire or demote workers based on age, even if you believe younger workers are more productive. Courts will scrutinize the real reason for termination.
- •If you lose an age discrimination case, the damages awarded may be reduced on appeal if the court finds the violation wasn't "willful" (intentional).
- •Document legitimate, non-age reasons for any termination or demotion before taking action. Replacing a 60-year-old with a 37-year-old raises immediate red flags.
Age discrimination occurs when employer believes productivity declines with old age.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I fire an older employee if I think a younger person will do the job better?
No. Age-based assumptions about productivity are illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). You must have documented, legitimate business reasons for any termination that are unrelated to age. If a younger worker replaces an older one, courts will scrutinize whether age was the real factor.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.