Court Update Recent Court Decisions That Impact Your Business
8th District: Summary Judgement for employer in age discrimination action reversed Southworth v. Northern Trust Securities, Inc. This case, involving allegations of age discrimination, concluded on July 14, 2011, with the Court of Appeals of Ohio ruling in favor John D. Southworth, an employee who was terminated from Northern Trust Securities back in February of 2009. The issue arose after Northern Trust executed a 'rif', or reduction-in-force, upon it's portfolio managers as well as some general staff. With regards to the portfolio managers, Northern Trust was to rank their performance and terminate two of the six managers working at the Cleveland office. The company decided to implement the 'rif' after market meltdowns resulting in losses. Southworth (age 63 at time of dismissal) claimed that the decision to terminate him occurred months before the ranking of portfolio managers and that Northern Trust manipulated the results to justify their retention of a younger, less productive employee. He discovered that in November of 2008, Northern Trust's human resources department had produced a list of names to be considered for a possible 'rif'. He claimed that his supervisor had already selected him to be let go from the company even before discussions of a 'rif' had begun. Additionally, a witness testified that Southworth's supervisor had once described him as "old-school", and "stuck in his ways". His age discrimination claim was brought under R.C. 4112.02(A), "which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge an employee without just cause because of age." The Court of Common Pleas did not grant summary judgment in favor of Southworth on the grounds that he provided no direct evidence that age discrimination had affected the decision to dismiss him as an employee. Southworth then took the case to the Court of Appeals of Ohio where he attempted to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. In order to institute a prima facie case, four conditions must be met: (1) that he was a member of the statutorily-protected class, which includes employees over the age of 40, (2) that he was discharged, (3) that he was qualified for the position, and (4) that his discharge permitted the retention of a person not belonging to the protected class. Let it also be noted that the Supreme Court redefined the parameters of establishing a prima facie case with the McDonnell Douglas case of 1996, which implied that in order to meet the fourth requirement, the retained employee doesn't necessarily have to be younger than 40. It was determined that Southworth met the first three requirements to establish a prima facie case, but needed to provide sizable amounts of evidence to substantiate the fourth requirement. Southworth did just this. He supplied Northern Trust's employee reviews that not only verified his excellent performance as a portfolio manager, but also displayed his ranking of 15 out of 92 portfolio managers across the span of the company. Southworth compared himself to another portfolio manager, a 41 year old, who had been retained by Northern Trust during the 'rif'. In 2007 it became a top priority for the portfolio managers to begin 'moving assets off their desktop' for their clients. By the end of 2008, Southworth had only 42% remaining assets on his desk, while the younger employee had 45%. It was also determined that he managed a book of assets with a value of $100 million more than the other employee. In a 'rif' regarding prima facie cases, it is also required for plaintiffs to prove that their employers singled them out for impermissible reasons. "This may be established through circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than younger employees during the reduction-in-force." (Branson v. Price River Coal Co.) Southworth resubmitted the evidence showing that the email sent out by human resources in 2008 did in fact single him out for termination as it only included him and one other employee (not a portfolio manager) from the Cleveland office. Upon review, the Court of Appeals found it "highly suspicious that Southworth was the only Cleveland portfolio manager listed on a reduction in force list that had been compiled so far in advance of any official announcement." The Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled "Northern Trust's explanations lacked plausibility, thus showing pretext for age discrimination." The Court stated that Southworth did establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and the case was ordered to be reversed and remanded. |