Federal Judge Focuses on Discrimination, Not Hiring Rationale

May 17, 2001 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A federal judge chose not to believe an employer's rationale for not promoting an older worker, but chose to believe his assertion that age didn't influence the decision.

Senior US District Judge Edmund V. Ludwig of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that plaintiffs in discrimination cases must “convince the fact-finder both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason.”

The finding was the result of a nonjury trial in Robinson v. Henderson, according to the Legal Intelligencer. 

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Case History

Judge Ludwig found that plaintiff Fannie Robinson had “arguably succeeded in discrediting the reason given” by her employer when she was denied a promotion to a human resources post.

Joseph DiDio, Robinson’s boss at the US Postal Service testified that he chose a younger candidate for the job because he had expressed himself more clearly in the interview, while Robinson had poor communication skills.

Robinson has worked for the US Postal Service for 29 years and is 64 years old.  She processed mail for 17 years, but a decade ago began working in the injury compensation unit, making up folders and answering the phone. She later moved to the customer service department.

A Failure To Communicate?

In 1998, she and three younger employees applied for a position as a human resource specialist.  Robinson claims she was the best candidate for the job, having already worked in the position for a four-month period several years earlier – and since she had the most seniority.

Supervisor DiDio drew a different conclusion after interviewing each of the four candidates for 15 minutes, selecting 38-year-old Joseph Tarczewski for the position.  DiDio later claimed that Tarczewski had expressed himself more clearly, and that communication was a key qualification for the position, which involved describing administrative processes to injured claimants.

However, Judge Ludwig chose not to accept that premise, since communication skills were never discussed during Robinson’s interview.  He did, however, choose to accept at face value DiDio’s claim that age played no role in the decision.  “Without more, the significant age difference between Tarczewski and plaintiff cannot satisfy her burden,” Ludwig wrote.

– Nevin Adams                    editors@plansponsor.com


 

Employer Actions Transcend Casual Treatment

April 17, 2001 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A federal appeals court decision that a grocery store chain must make pension contributions on behalf of those employees that they classified as "casual", was left standing by the US Supreme Court.

Kroger had classified all part-time employees as “casual”, but the district court found that part-time employees were not “casual” workers as defined by the collective bargaining agreement.

Employer Actions

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The court, in Kroger Co. v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, found that workers were not hired on a short-term basis since the store had employed them expecting them to shift to full-time regular employee status once an opening occurred.

In the earlier ruling, the judge had noted that casual employment was defined as “short and indefinite” and therefore inconsistent with the fact that part-time employees were required to bid on permanent positions.

The court held that the grocer?s practice of treating the employees as “casual” workers for pension contribution purposes did not override “the unambiguous definition of casual employees contained in” the collective bargaining agreement.

«