Jardin v. CoxCom, LLC

Facts

1. 2 Age forty or older satisfied conceded

   Mr. Jardin was 53 years old when he was terminated;

2. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded

   Based on this admission, Cox terminated Mr. Jardin for "egregious misconduct" under its Corrective Action Policy.

3. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded

   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.

4. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   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."

5. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   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.

6. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   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.

7. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   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.

8. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   Mr. Andrukiewicz made these remarks around four to five months prior to Mr. Jardin's termination.

9. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence

   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.