Takeaway: Employers must take care to properly and fairly implement performance action plans to avoid the perception that “the game is fixed” and termination inevitable.
A manufacturing company’s inconsistent explanations for imposing an unattainable performance action plan on a long-time engineering employee with a strong performance history convinced the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse summary judgment for the employer and allow the employee’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) claim to proceed.
The plaintiff began working for his employer, a leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, in 1979. He was promoted to senior design engineer after obtaining his engineering degree. In August 2000, he and other engineers over the age of 40 were passed over for promotion. After the employee complained that he was not promoted because of his age, he was placed on a performance action plan and later fired.
The employee sued the manufacturer for age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA. The employer was granted summary judgment on the age discrimination claim, but the retaliation claim went to trial, and the plaintiff was awarded double his lost wages and reinstatement.
In 2008, the employee was promoted to serve as “job owner lead,” a leadership role on an engineering team. In early 2016, he was asked to lead a sound reduction project while continuing to fulfill his existing responsibilities as a unit leader. Between 2013 and...
The offshore world has always attracted strong opinions. It’s complex, global, and full of moving parts that most people don’t fully understand. Mix that with online anonymity and you suddenly hav...