Skip to main content

An Age Discrimination Claim Continues When An Employee is Terminated for a Mouth Full of Coffee...Interesting


Salazar v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Marcelino Salazar ("Salazar") worked at Cargill Meat Solutions Corp ("Cargill") from the mide 1980's through 2012 when he was terminated.  At the time of termination, Salazar was 56 and had not received any disciplinary warnings.  In June 2012, Salazar attended a meeting where a supervisor asked whether Salazar had any problems with his work vehicle.  When asked the question, Salazar "was taking a drink of coffee and was not able to answer out loud, so [he] shrugged [his] shoulders as a way of indicating "no" to the question."  However, the supervisor viewed Salazar's "refusal" to answer as insubordination and terminated him on the spot.

Following Salazar's termination, a new employee (about thirty seven years younger) appeared at work at took over Salazar's position.  Salazar filed suit and alleged his termination was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cargill on the grounds that Cargill had a non-discriminatory reason for its action (Salazar's insubordination at the June 2012 meeting).

Holding:  The Court of Appeals noted that under the ADEA, an employer is prohibited from discharging an individual or discriminating against him because of his age.  In this instance, the Court noted that the District Court properly held that Salazar had established a prima facie case of age discrimination.  

However, the Court disagreed that Cargill's conduct was non-discriminatory.  Salazar had presented evidence that he had worked for Cargill for more than twenty years without a disciplinary incident; the conduct for which he was terminated was routine (and had never been met with sanction before); he had been disciplined without warning or a write up; and on the day of his termination, a new, younger employee assumed his work responsibilities.  Based upon the facts, as alleged, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to allow Salazar to proceed on his claim.

Judgment:  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of Salazar's ADEA claim and held that based upon the facts alleged, there was sufficient evidence to allow his age discrimination claim to proceed against Cargill.

The Takeaway:  This was an interesting, albeit short, case to read.  I think it is important to distinguish in this case that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was not saying that Salazar's claim was valid and that he would prevail.  Instead, the Court pointed out that based upon the facts alleged, there was enough evidence to allow his age discrimination claim to continue. 

Based upon the fact that Salazar had no history of a disciplinary problem, did not seem to be acting in an insubordinate way she he nodded with a mouth full of coffee, and was replaced (quickly) by a much younger employee, it makes sense why the Fifth Circuit revived his claims.  Whether Salazar has enough evidence to prevail at trial is anyone's guess.  But in the interim, he sure seems to have alleged enough bad conduct by Cargill to warrant his ADEA claim continuing through the legal system.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per curiam decision

Date:  October 8, 2015

Opinion:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1474574505330897611&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more