Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on both age and disability. If you are subject to an employment discrimination lawsuit or are worried about becoming subject to an employment discrimination lawsuit, this will outline the federal court’s interpretation of both the ADEA and ADA and guide how to protect yourself from potential liability.
ADEA
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), an employer may not discriminate against an employee or potential employee over the age of 40 based on that employee’s age. In practice, this means that federal law prohibits you from refusing to hire an employee or deciding to fire an employee based on that employee’s age.
In Newell v. Carter Bank & Trust, Civil Action 4:21-cv-00007-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2023), the court explains that a plaintiff bringing an age discrimination claim under the ADEA has the burden of proving that his or her age was the reason for the alleged adverse employment action (ex. Not hiring the plaintiff or terminating the plaintiff’s employment). It is important to note that the plaintiff cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim if age was only one of the multiple motives for the employer’s action.
Unless the plaintiff has explicit and direct evidence indicating that the employer’s action was based solely on age discrimination, the plaintiff must prove that: 1) she was 40 years of age or older during the events in question; 2) she experienced adverse employment action; 3) she was meeting her employer’s expectations at the time of the adverse action; and 4) she was replaced with or treated less favorably than someone not insignificantly younger. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements, then the burden shifts to the employer to show that they had a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision.” If the employer can prove they had a legitimate reason for their action, then the burden falls back on the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason for their adverse action is just a pretext for discrimination.
Under the ADEA, an employer may also not discriminate against an employee who has opposed some practice of the employer that violated the ADEA or participated in some proceeding involving the employer’s violation of the ADEA. If a plaintiff believes they have been discriminated against for this reason, they can sue their employer for unlawful retaliation. Federal courts have determined that in an unlawful retaliation case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her employer took adverse action against her; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.
ADAAA
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended by Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008), an employer may not discharge an employee on the basis of the employee’s disability.
To succeed on a discrimination claim under the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) she was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was discharged; (3) she was fulfilling her employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of discharge; and (4) the circumstances of discharge raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination.
Takeaway: Terminating an Employee/Defending Yourself in an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit
Federal Courts have established that a plaintiff will only succeed on a discrimination claim under the ADEA or the ADA if the plaintiff can prove that the discrimination was the cause for their termination. For claims involving age and disability discrimination, the Court must look at whether the plaintiff was meeting her employer’s expectations. Under the ADEA, even if the plaintiff was meeting her employer’s expectations, the employer can refute the plaintiff’s claim if they can prove that they had a legitimate reason for their actions that was not based on discrimination. An employee’s job performance and evidence of previous issues with the employee will be relevant to whether an employee was meeting employer expectations and whether the employer had a legitimate reason for the termination.
Courts will consider warnings to the employee about their job performance as evidence that the employee was not meeting employer expectations and that the employer had a legitimate reason for firing their employee. For example, in Newell v. Carter Bank & Trust, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment because the employer was able to provide proof of various issues that the employer had previously had with the plaintiff’s work performance that were not related to the plaintiff’s age or disability. One of the many examples of evidence that the employer provided was the fact that the plaintiff had been written up in the past for violating an anti-harassment policy.
This case demonstrates the extreme importance in an employer documenting any warnings they give their employees about their work performance. While courts can consider verbal warnings, an employer should document as much as they can in writing as well. Not only will written warnings put the employee on notice that they are not meeting employer expectations, but it will also give the employer evidence to protect themselves in potential litigation in employment discrimination lawsuits.
If you need more guidance or information, contact the employment law attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. today at 703-556-0411, intake@gcpc.com, or use this Contact Us Form. Attorneys at General Counsel, P.C. specialize in labor and employment law and have experience working with businesses, non-profits, and individuals throughout the DC Metropolitan area and across Virginia, specifically in Fairfax County, Arlington, and Loudoun County.