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.

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

Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. August 31, 1998)

Keywords: ADEA (reduction in force; failure to transfer)

Introduction: Edward Ercegovich sued Goodyear under the ADEA for wrongful termination as part of a reduction in force and for failure to transfer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodyear. The Sixth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part.

Facts: Ercegovich was a Quality Systems Coordinator in Human Resources Development, Retail Sales Division of Goodyear in Akron, Ohio. He was responsible for the training of retail managers throughout the country for the purpose of improving customer service. In 1994, as part of a reduction in force, Ercegovich's position was eliminated. Goodyear claims it offered to transfer him to other positions; but Ercegovich denies this offer was made. Several months later, two younger members of Human Resources were transferred to new positions after the old positions were abolished.

Law:

1. Reduction in force
   1. Ercegovich's claim fails because he did not show that Goodyear's proffered reason (position eliminated to save money) was pretextual.
2. Failure to transfer
   1. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that:
      1. he or she is a member of a protected class;
      2. at the time of his or her termination he or she was qualified for other available positions within the corporation;
      3. the employer did not offer such positions to the plaintiff; and
      4. a similarly-situated employee who is not a member of the protected class was offered the opportunity to transfer to an available position, or other direct, indirect, or circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of discrimination.
   2. The issue is whether the two younger employees in Human Resources were similarly situated.
   3. The other employees must only be similar in all relevant aspects. Therefore, even though they held different positions from Ercegovich, they worked in related positions in the same department and their positions were eliminated as part of the same reorganization.
   4. As a result, the Sixth Circuit holds that Ercegovich established his prima facie case.
   5. Next, Goodyear's proffered reason is that it did offer him a transfer, but since this is disputed, there is a jury question.
3. Age-based remarks
   1. The Court also analyzes several age-based remarks.
   2. In determining that statements from several corporate executives should be admissible, the Sixth Circuit evaluated the following factors: the declarant's position in the corporate hierarchy, the purpose and content of the statement, the temporal connection between the statement and the challenged employment action; and whether the statement buttresses other evidence of pretext.
4. Click here to see actual case.