Because of Her Age

Last October, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an age discrimination claim (that stemmed from a reduction-in-force) must go to trial, despite the overwhelming pre-RIF planning that was accomplished by the employer: Sanders v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P., 544 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2008). The employer there was a large telephone service provider that had determined, based on its business needs, that the positions of 23 employees had to be eliminated. Detailed management guidelines were in place to guide the reduction in force - establishing a sophisticated ranking process to determine the positions which were to be eliminated. Moreover, the employer substantially followed its established process. Faced with these and other undisputed facts, the District Court granted summary judgment to Sanders on her claims.

However, at the appellate level, that District Court's decision was reversed. The Court of Appeals based its holding, in part, on Sanders' deposition testimony as to what was said by her Manager when he informed her of the outcome of the ranking process; and, she testified that, at that time, he allegedly told Sanders that it was "her age", not her job performance, that was the cause of her ranking. The District Court, apparently, had concluded that "[g]iven the different versions of this conversation . . . , this evidence is at most circumstantial". On the other hand, the Court of Appeals specifically found that the Manager's alleged statement was "direct-not circumstantial-evidence . . . ", and further wrote that "[i]f the jury believes Ms. Sanders' testimony, it could conclude-directly, without the aid of any favorable inferences-that the reason for her surplus [i.e., ranking] was her age."

Consequently, the Court of Appeals held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Sanders had been discharged because of her age.