Richardson v. Astec, Inc.

366 F. Supp. 3d 983 (2019) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee 2019-03-18

civil; ADEA age discrimination; employer motion for summary judgment denied by ED Tenn (result: claimant-won)

Facts

  1. 2 Age forty or older satisfied conceded
    Richardson was seventy years old when Astec terminated her.
  2. 2 Age forty or older satisfied conceded
    The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held.
  3. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded
    On January 16, 2017, after Oswald submitted his complaint, McMahan and Oswald met with Locklear and, at the conclusion of the meeting, decided to terminate Richardson's employment.
  4. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded
    The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held.
  5. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    Richardson also testified that two or three days before her termination, McMahan asked when she was going to retire, noting that she was about to be seventy years old.
  6. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    McMahan maintains any questions about Richardson's retirement plans were solely for purposes of succession planning, citing the need to ensure that certain responsibilities were covered in the event an employee resigned, retired, or otherwise ended their employment relationship with Astec.
  7. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    Astec does not point to any evidence suggesting that Oswald was not expected to comply with Astec's core values or that McMahan subsequently disciplined him for his alleged conduct.
  8. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    An employee can demonstrate pretext by providing evidence that the employer's reason for terminating her: (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the discharge; or (3) was insufficient to motivate the discharge.
  9. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    Additionally, Richardson has submitted a declaration from Debbie Daugherty in which she avers that Richardson never made her cry and that she refused to report Richardson to human resources despite Oswald's urging.
  10. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable
    Accordingly, Richardson has provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Astec's stated reason for firing Richardson was actually pretext for age discrimination.