June 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 30

LAW REVIEW
much about whether the boss terminated
someone because of her
age " in violation of the ADEA:
Title VII [of federal civil rights
law] is not a general civility code...
[which would impose] liability
based on the sporadic use of abusive
language. Anti-discrimination
laws are not triggered by rude behavior.
" In
the opinion of the federal
district court, the Park District
had given 'a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason'
for termination of Plaintiff's
employment. "
Similarly Situated
Employees
Plaintiff also had alleged " the Park
District
extended
deadlines
for
younger employees and cut them
some slack when they had performance
problems. " To be considered
relevant within the context
of an ADEA claim, the federal
district court would require these
younger employees to be " similarly
situated " to Plaintiff:
In general, a plaintiff who believes
another individual is similarly
situated must at least show
that this comparator (1) dealt with
the same supervisor, (2) was subject
to the same standards, and (3)
engaged in similar conduct without
such differentiating or mitigating
circumstances as would distinguish
his conduct or the employer's
treatment of him.
Although precise equivalence is
not required in a comparator, a
similarly situated employee must
be directly comparable to plaintiffs
in all material respects.
In this particular instance, the
court found no such evidence that
these younger employees had comparable
jobs, or whether they had a
long disciplinary history similar to
Plaintiff's.
Feeling Undervalued
Plaintiff had further claimed " older
employees were undervalued,
treated
al. " As described by the court, " the
explanation from the Park District
is straightforward " :
The Park District let her go
because she had a disciplinary
history, and it caught up with her
when the mistakes piled up. The
Park District points to Plaintiff's
" missing deadlines, lacking follow
through
on
poorly and pushed out,
fired or forced to take early retirement. "
Plaintiff had testified that
other older employees had told her
they had feelings of being treated
differently and not being valued in
an unhealthy work environment.
According to the court, Plaintiff's
ADEA claim could be
helped by evidence " the Park
District forced older employees
to hit the exits, while allowing
younger employees to stay. " The
court, however, found no such
evidence existed in the pretrial record
based upon " feelings about
an unhealthy environment " :
There's a world of difference
between former employees feeling
undervalued, and an entity forcing
out old employees because of
their age. The evidence is simply
too amorphous and insubstantial
to get to trial.... Conclusions must
be supported by specific facts, otherwise
they are not sufficient to
avoid summary judgment.
Pretext
In the opinion of the federal district
court, the Park District had
given " a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason " for termination of
Plaintiff's employment. The remaining
question before the court
was, therefore, " whether the Park
District's explanation was pretextu30
Parks & Recreation | JUNE 2 0 22 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
assignments,
and
exhibiting a lack of attention to
detail when performance issues
were brought to her attention. "
As defined by the court, pretext " is
not just faulty reasoning or mistaken
judgment on the part of the employer;
it is a lie, specifically a phony
reason for some action. " Moreover,
to show pretext, the court would
require Plaintiff to " come forward
with evidence " that demonstrated
" the employer's nondiscriminatory
reason was dishonest " and " the employer's
true reason was based on a
discriminatory intent. "
In alleging pretext, Plaintiff
claimed the Park District had " exaggerated
her mistakes " and had
" offered differing explanations for
her termination. " The federal district
court, however, found Plaintiff's
argument " overlooks and
downplays her work history, which
was decidedly choppy " :
She was disciplined in 2012.
She was placed on Performance
Improvement Plan in 2012. She
was disciplined again in 2015.
And she was disciplined again
in 2017. All of that took place
before the deadline problems in
2017, which immediately preceded
her termination. That's a
steady current of evidence flowing
against her.
Agency Personnel Policy
Plaintiff also faulted the Park Dis
June 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2022 - Parks & Recreation
