In
Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., the Sixth Circuit recently held that ageist comments attributed to a bank’s CEO were insufficient evidence to support an employee’s claim that she was fired because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Two of the three statements in question related to another employee in her eighties, and the third was a statement that the bank should hire younger tellers.
The bank presented evidence to show that it had fired the plaintiff for insubordination. A new manager had implemented a policy requiring employees to submit requests for time off in writing. The employee informed the manager that she was not going to fill out the request form because she did not have to. Even though the employee eventually relented and complied, she was fired for insubordination. The employee argued that the three age-related statements she had overheard proved that her age, 47, was a reason for her termination.
EEOC Argues For Broader Causation Standard And Provides A Peek Into The EEOC s Future Focus | Jackson Lewis P C jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Feb 12, 2021
AARP, AARP Foundation and NELA Urge U.S. Court of Appeals to Reverse “Sole Cause” Decision that Threatens Older Workers
WASHINGTON AARP, AARP Foundation and the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) are urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse an appeals court ruling in an age discrimination lawsuit,
Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc. The appeals court ruling could have far reaching implications that would make it even more difficult for older workers to prove claims of illegal age discrimination.
Melanie Pelcha, a former Ohio bank teller dismissed at age 47, disputes the three-judge Court of Appeals panel’s decision that in order to prevail in her civil rights case, she had to prove that age was the “sole cause” of her termination. This ruling will make it harder to enforce longstanding protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which covers workers age 40 and over.