Source: cases/29usc623/f-supp-3d-320-373-jardin-v-coxcom.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_320/0373_01/index.html
Where isolated remarks-like those attributed to Mr. Andrukiewicz here-lack specific timing or context or linkage to the adverse employment decision, they are insufficient to prove an employer's discriminatory animus.
On the final element, after reviewing the evidence, the Court finds that Mr. Jardin failed to present evidence that his age was the real reason Cox fired him.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/320/0373-01 name Jardin v. CoxCom, LLC cite 320 F. Supp. 3d 373 (2018) court United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island date 2018-07-30 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_320/0373_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl sha1=8d36068ef7bd6e1edad4fe1cdcfa2f35ba9c4853 chars=13511 opinion order : order by McConnell @0..13511 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA age discrimination; employer motion for summary judgment granted by DRI result claimant-lost element protected-age : satisfied [conceded] route _whole pattern 53-year-old facilities technician; class membership conceded for the motion fact @979..1030 [supports] | Mr. Jardin was 53 years old when he was terminated; element employment-action : satisfied [conceded] route discharge pattern termination for a policy violation after 19 years of service; discharge conceded fact @2584..2697 [supports] | Based on this admission, Cox terminated Mr. Jardin for "egregious misconduct" under its Corrective Action Policy. fact @6791..7226 [supports] | For purposes of this motion, Cox does not dispute that Mr. Jardin has met these four elements, conceding that (1) Mr. Jardin is part of the protected class due to his age,' (2) he maintained a satisfactory standing as an employee at Cox; (3) he was terminated by Cox; and (4) his position was not filled, but his co-worker, who had similar qualifications and job responsibilities, assumed many of Mr. Jardin's assignments and projects. element age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route pretext-inference pattern supervisor's two "weird old man" remarks five months before a discharge for admitted misconduct decided by HR; no nexus fact @1302..1517 [supports] | Immediately after Mr, Andrukiewicz started as interim supervisor and five months prior to Mr. Jardin's termination, in two different department meetings, Mr. Andrukiewicz referred to Mr. Jardin as a "weird old man." fact @2385..2583 [cuts-against] | During the interview, as well as in his deposition, Mr. Jardin admitted to dropping the trash on the customer's premises and failing to pick it up, but asserted that he did not intentionally litter. fact @10557..10774 [cuts-against] | In addition, although Mr. Andrukiewicz supported the decision to terminate Mr. Jardin for his misconduct, he was not primarily responsible for doing so; Human Resources Manager William Roccio made this final decision. fact @10881..10978 [cuts-against] | Mr. Andrukiewicz made these remarks around four to five months prior to Mr. Jardin's termination. rule @10979..11195 | Where isolated remarks-like those attributed to Mr. Andrukiewicz here-lack specific timing or context or linkage to the adverse employment decision, they are insufficient to prove an employer's discriminatory animus. held @9677..9835 | On the final element, after reviewing the evidence, the Court finds that Mr. Jardin failed to present evidence that his age was the real reason Cox fired him.