Takeaway: A policy that affords a worker in violation of company regulations a last chance to keep their job is not necessarily targeting older workers. In this case, the employee failed to provide a factual basis for demonstrating that any statistical disparities in workers’ treatment were due to age discrimination.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of a Pennsylvania-based railroad company on an age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) made by an employee who worked for the company eight years before he was terminated.
The 41-year-old worker alleged he was targeted by his supervisor under a company plan to cut costs that, in part, discriminated against older employees by imposing “sham workplace violations” and then pressuring them to sign last-chance agreements.
In exchange for continued employment during a probationary period, a last-chance agreement requires an employee to waive formal disciplinary proceedings.
The 3rd Circuit took up the worker’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal in favor of his employer. The lower court cited a failure to allege facts of an employer policy that surreptitiously promoted age discrimination or disparately impacted workers over the age of 40.
In 2016, after calling his supervisor a “jagoff,” the plaintiff signed a last-chance agreement to keep his job rather than face a hearing and immediately be fired for insubordination. The terms—in effect for three years—...
“When companies use kickbacks to influence prescribing, they erode trust in healthcare providers,” said special agent Helsing. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A. Inc has agreed to $13,670,921 amid alle...