On July 8, 2019, PLDO prevailed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of our client the Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation/Wyatt Detention Facility (the “Wyatt”) on an age discrimination case, Caruso v. Central Falls Detention. The case stands for the proposition that a plaintiff needs to prove he was replaced by another younger employee to establish age discrimination.

The plaintiff, the Director of Training at Wyatt, was terminated following a reorganization of its executive staff. He sued Wyatt claiming that his termination was related to his age. In his decision, District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. ruled that “[t]he facts are undisputed that Wyatt did not replace (the plaintiff), but rather redistributed his job responsibilities to existing employees to save the costs of his position because of Wyatt’s severe financial condition. This redistribution of responsibilities does not equate to replacement under the law of age discrimination.” It should be noted that Wyatt distributed plaintiff’s responsibilities to two employees who then performed the plaintiff’s duties in addition to their existing duties.

Judge McConnell’s ruling affirmed that a “discharged employee is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work.”

For employers considering a reduction in their workforce, this case provides guidance on how to avoid liability in age discrimination claims. Employers may redistribute the eliminated position’s duties to other employees. So long as the retained employees perform the terminated employee’s responsibilities in addition to their current duties, a former employee will have difficulties claiming age discrimination.

[back to top]

A recent federal decision highlights the fact that a single very offensive exchange does not, without more, give rise to a viable sexual harassment claim. In Chesier v. On Q Fin, Inc., United States District Judge Dominic W. Lanza issued an opinion on whether one grossly inappropriate act between a supervisor and a subordinate supports a claim for hostile work environment. Plaintiff Mary Chesier (“Chesier”) worked as an administrative assistant for the defendant On Q Financial, Inc. (“On Q”). Her boss, Thomas Middleton worked as On Q’s Vice President of Business Development (“Middleton”). Chesier and Middleton engaged in a work instant message conversation on March 20, 2017. The conversation occurred over three hours and both parties sent sexually explicit messages, including Middleton asking about Chesier’s underwear. Chesier engaged in the nearly three hour chat session without voicing an objection to her boss. However, on the next morning Chesier complained to a supervisor and showed her employer the messages. The employer suspended and then terminated Middleton.

Chesier sued and despite Middleton’s highly offensive conduct, the court granted summary judgment and reasoned that the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a claim of sexual harassment. Chesier argued that the case involved multiple incidents of harassment because there were eleven different messages sent over three hours. However, the court noted the sexual statements all occurred during a single conversation.

The court then reasoned that Chesier needed to show “extremely severe” conduct because the case involved a single incident of harassment and provided that other courts had only found such “highly reprehensible conduct” in cases where plaintiffs endured sexual assault or some other form of violent physical touching. The court then granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment because it deemed the harassment to constitute one incident.

For employers, this case provides instruction on how to address reports of clear sexual harassment. Even offensive behavior does not mean automatic liability if an employer takes appropriate action. The employer completed an investigation; sent the harasser home and then terminated his employment upon completion of its investigation. The employer also offered to work with victim to address her concerns and keep her in its workforce. These facts allowed the employer to avoid liability.

[back to top]

In Bouyea v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine addressed a claim of wrongful termination on the basis of age. This case highlights why employers must have a consistent message when terminating an employee. Bouyea was a thirty year employee who worked as a General Manager for a contractor that operated a hospital cafeteria. His employer sold its operation to an out-of-state food services provider Metz Culinary Management, Inc. (“Metz”) and Metz chose to keep Bouyea as the manager of food services at the hospital.

Bouyea then began to have difficulties with Metz concerning his performance. Bouyea missed his targeted budget and the employer placed him on a plan to hit his budget targets within sixty days and subjected Bouyea to a thirty day target to hit several other goals. When Bouyea failed to meet the budgeted target, his supervisor emailed him to “express disappointment.” Approximately two months later, a state inspection found several deficiencies in the food service area at the hospital.

The employer then terminated Bouyea and stated that the operation needed a “fresh start” but that Bouyea could apply for an open position at another Metz facility in Canton, Ohio. After Bouyea left Metz, the hospital’s CEO sent Bouyea a letter thanking him for his thirty years of service and expressing surprise at his departure. Metz was unable to obtain summary judgment on Bouyea’s claims. The court noted that Bouyea’s evidence of prior commendations and the letter written by the hospital’s CEO expressing surprise at Bouyea’s termination and thanking him for years of “wonderful service” could allow a juror to draw an inference that something other than performance was motivating the decision to terminate.

For employers, this case is instructive on messaging a termination. Metz told Bouyea that it decided to terminate him because its Maine operation needed a “fresh start” but Metz did not state that Bouyea had been unable to hit his budget targets and the operation had been cited by the state for health code violations at the termination meeting. Metz also failed to speak to its client – the hospital – after terminating Bouyea and the hospital’s CEO then sent a glowing letter to Bouyea expressing “surprise” at his termination and commending him on his service to the hospital. For employers, this case shows that management and human resources must be consistent in providing reasons for termination. If not, a terminated employee may argue that the stated reasons for a termination are flawed and argue that there is an inference that the termination was discriminatory.

[back to top]