Johnson v. MegaCorp (2024)
Probability Distribution
Legal Reasoning
Plaintiff establishes prima facie case of age discrimination under ADEA by showing: (1) membership in protected class (58 years old), (2) qualification for the position, (3) adverse employment action (termination), and (4) replacement by younger worker.
The timing of termination during "workforce modernization" initiative creates inference of age-based discrimination.
Statistical evidence showing disproportionate impact on employees over 50 strengthens discrimination claim.
Documented performance reviews showing "exceeds expectations" ratings contradict employer's stated reason for termination.
Comparator evidence showing younger employees with similar or worse performance were retained.
Company emails using coded language like "new energy" and "fresh perspective" may indicate age bias.
Legal Citations
29 U.S.C. § 623 - Age Discrimination in Employment Act
StatuteProhibits age discrimination against individuals 40 years or older in employment decisions.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
Case LawEstablishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)
Case LawClarifies that plaintiff must prove age was the "but-for" cause of adverse action in ADEA cases.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)
Case LawHolds that plaintiff's prima facie case plus evidence of pretext can be sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Counter-Arguments
- •Employer argues termination was based on legitimate business restructuring needs, not age.
- •Employer may present evidence of younger employees also terminated in same restructuring.
- •Employer could claim plaintiff's position was eliminated, not that plaintiff was replaced.
- •Employer may argue plaintiff failed to meet new job requirements or changing business needs.
- •Employer could present evidence of age-diverse workforce and promotion of older workers elsewhere.
What Could Flip the Verdict
- 1.Strong documentary evidence showing legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons for restructuring.
- 2.Evidence that decision-makers were unaware of plaintiff's age when making termination decision.
- 3.Proof that younger employees with similar tenure and performance were also terminated.
- 4.Evidence of significant performance issues not reflected in reviews but documented elsewhere.
- 5.Successful rebuttal of statistical evidence showing no disparate impact on older workers overall.