Four-Years-Younger Replacement Not Sufficient to Support ADEA Claim
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld [1] a lower court’s dismissal of a former firearms instructor’s lawsuit alleging he was demoted because of his age. The Court found that a four-year age difference between the instructor and his replacement did not demonstrate he was treated less favorably than others protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).[2]
The instructor was aged 59 when removed from his position. He was replaced by a 55-year-old. The Court held that his replacement by someone only four years his junior did not give rise to an inference of age discrimination. Generally, it held, “an age difference of less than 10 years is not sufficiently substantial.”
Takeaway
The Tenth Circuit’s holding confirms that simply being replaced by someone younger may not be sufficient to support an employee’s age bias claim. Contact the attorneys at Campbell Litigation, P.C. for assistance with employees’ discrimination claims.
FN1 -Roberts v. Winder, et al, Case No. 20-cv-04082 (10th Cir., October 26, 2021); https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110595742.pdf
FN2 - The ADEA protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. A claim of age discrimination under the ADEA requires plaintiffs to show they (1) are a member of the class protected by the ADEA, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) were qualified for the employment position at issue, and (4) were treated less favorably than others not in the ADEA protected class. Jones v. Okla. City Public Schs., 617 F.3d 1273, 1279 (10th Cir. 2010).