Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Thornley v. Penton Publishing, Inc., 104 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. Cir. January 7, 1997)

Keywords: ADEA (wrongful termination, legitimate expectations of the employer)

Introduction: Kenneth Thornley sued his former employer under the ADEA for age discrimination. The jury found in Thornley's favor and awarded $525,000 -- to be doubled because of willfulness. The Second Circuit vacates and remands for a new trial because of an error in the jury instructions.

Facts: All relevant facts are discussed below.

Law:

1. The district court charged the jury that a factor to consider in determining whether Penton discharged Thornley because of his age was whether Thornley was sufficiently competent to satisfy the legitimate expectations of an employer.
2. This was an error because the factor to consider is whether Thornley was sufficiently competent to satisfy Penton's expectations.
3. Absent a showing that the employer's demands were made in bad faith, an employer who is sued on allegations of age discrimination is not compelled to submit the reasonableness of its employment criteria to the assessment of either judge or jury.
4. Penton did not waive its objection to the jury charge by failing to take exception to it prior to the start of jury deliberations. Penton had already argued its position to the district judge and any further exception after the delivery of the charge would have been a mere formality.
5. Furthermore, this error was not harmless because the Second Circuit cannot be confident that the jury did not rest its decision on the impermissible basis that Penton's demands on its employees were unreasonable and an average employer would have found Thornley's performance acceptable.
6. However, the Court rejects Penton's assertion that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thornley presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question.
7. Finally, the Court provides some guidance on the issue of damages in the event Thornley prevails on retrial. The overarching principle of this "advice" is that a court should place the injured party as near as may be, in the situation he would have occupied if the wrong had not been committed.
8. Click here to see actual case.