Sales Person's Termination Was Not Age Or Disability Discrimination
In this case, a terminated older sales employee brought suit alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The
United States District Court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding
that: (1) the employee failed to establish a prima
facie case of age discrimination, absent evidence he was replaced by a younger
person or that he was the target of a reduction in force (RIF) because of his
age; (2) the employer's proffered reasons for his termination, complaints that
his customers were not able to reach him during the period he was on medical
leave or because his error rate was unacceptably high, were legitimate and
nondiscriminatory and were not shown to be pretextual; (3) the employee also
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on perceived
disability, where he offered no evidence he was replaced and merely identified
individuals who were redistributed his duties; and (4) again, the employer's
proffered reasons, that he was the obvious choice for termination based on his
sales performance, error rate, and complaints about his efficiency at responding
to customers, were legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonpretextual.
McFarland v. Century Truss Co.