Ryan Golden
3 min read
In This Article:
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter.
-
A district court erred when it dismissed a former Caterpillar employee’s age discrimination claim because he demonstrated that the performance improvement plan that preceded his firing was “impossible” to complete successfully, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held June 18.
-
Per the decision in Murphy v. Caterpillar, Inc., the plaintiff had already once won an age-discrimination jury verdict against Caterpillar after allegedly being passed over for a promotion. The two sides settled and Caterpillar reinstated the plaintiff and agreed not to retaliate against him. Years later, the company allegedly presented the plaintiff with a PIP in which one of the plan’s deadlines had already passed, indicating that the plaintiff had already violated the plan.
-
The employee claimed his supervisors denied his request to edit the plan and, instead, signed the portion of the PIP indicating that he failed to meet the deadline. He sued for age discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Caterpillar, but the 7th Circuit reversed on the age discrimination claim only, holding that the PIP supported a reasonable inference of discriminatory pretext.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age-based employment discrimination against applicants and employees who are 40 years of age or older. The plaintiff in Murphy was 58 when his employment at Caterpillar ended, and the three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit noted that he met or exceeded expectations in every evaluation category at the time that supervisors placed him on the PIP.
That the plaintiff was technically in violation of the plan before even agreeing to sign it constituted an oddity that could not be explained away as an oversight, the court said. It added that a jury could infer that the supervisors’ decision to sign the document confirming the plaintiff’s failure to meet the plan before it took effect “signaled to [the plaintiff] that his fate had been decided.”
Quoting a prior decision, the court wrote that “the handwriting may not have been on the wall, but it was certainly etched into the signature block of the action plan, and the axe was poised to fall because [the plaintiff] was already in breach of the plan’s terms.”
Caterpillar offered several justifications for the PIP as well as the termination decision. According to the 7th Circuit, the company told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the plan was partially prompted by inappropriate comments the plaintiff made to two co-workers. But the court noted that the supervisors testified the PIP was initiated before they learned of the alleged comments.
