Full Defense Verdict in Age Discrimination Allegations
We represented Cengage Learning, an educational content, technology, and services company for in an age discrimination suit. Janet Kerekes, who had been a long-time employee, filed a claim against Cengage for age discrimination after she was terminated for performance issues. After unsuccessful attempts at mediation and denial of summary judgment, the parties went through a seven day jury trial in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. We successfully obtained a fully defense verdict for Cengage.
Successful Defense of Client in Age Discrimination Suit and Appeal
We represented AMPAC Plastics Inc., a plastics manufacturer, in the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in a case regarding an age discrimination filing. The plaintiff filed an age discrimination suit after he was terminated for performance issues. The plaintiff, who was consistently top salesman at the company, failed to generate new business as opposed to fostering the growth of old business. He and a younger salesman were put on the same performance improvement plans, whereby they were both required to generate two new clients of a defined value each month.
While neither salesman technically generated two new clients a month, the younger salesman generated an extremely substantial client in one month. The plaintiff was terminated for non-performance while the younger employee was retained. As a result of his termination, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination suit.
After taking the plaintiff’s deposition and defending four witness depositions, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment providing a multi-faceted argument. Our client was granted Summary Judgment on the plaintiff’s discrimination claims with the court agreeing with all facets of our defense.
After the plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision, the 6th Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Ohio’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of our client on the plaintiff’s claims for age discrimination.