Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Sides with Employee in Age Discrimination Case

Kathy Baker was terminated from her position as director of an assisted living center operated by Silver Oak Senior Living Management Company, L.C. Ms. Baker sued Silver Oak alleging that she was terminated because of her age and because she opposed age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Missouri Human Rights Act. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Silver Oak and Ms. Baker appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.

Particularly relevant to the court were numerous statements the employer allegedly made evidencing a preference for younger workers over ADEA protected employees.

We conclude that Baker has presented a submissible case of age discrimination for determination by a jury. Most significant are statements of Lindsey and Thomas, who participated in the decision to terminate Baker, evincing a preference for the employment of younger workers over persons in the class protected by the ADEA. Lindsey's statement to his management team that Silver Oak was "missing the boat by not hiring more younger, vibrant people," and that employees "should start looking over applications better and try to consider hiring younger people" is evidence that a reasonable jury could take to reflect a discriminatory attitude by one who participated in Baker's termination. A jury likewise could find that Thomas's attitude about employment at Silver Oak was biased against older workers, given her directions that Baker should fire certain workers in their 50s and 60s so that Thomas could hire "younger workers" who would be "better workers, have more energy, be more enthusiastic and stimulate the residents."

Other comments by Lindsey and Thomas are open to interpretation, but on a motion for summary judgment, they must be viewed in the context of the foregoing statements. Lindsey's desire to rid the company of "dead wood" could be a legitimate preference to terminate unproductive workers regardless of age, but it could also be a manifestation of a discriminatory attitude against older workers in general. Thomas's criticism of Baker for dressing "like an old lady," and exhortations to "keep up" with younger executives like Lindsey and Upshaw might be given a benign gloss, but they also could be seen reasonably as further evidence of age-based bias. In light of statements by Lindsey and Thomas that clearly reflect a discriminatory attitude against older workers, statements that might otherwise be dismissed as harmless workplace banter assume greater probative value on a motion for summary judgment.

Concluding, the court held that

[T]here is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Baker engaged in protected activity under the ADEA and the MHRA before she was terminated. By protesting to Thomas that it was wrong to terminate older employees, and that Silver Oak could not discharge employees "just because they are old," Thomas clearly opposed conduct that she reasonably believed to be unlawful age discrimination.

Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co., L.C., No. 08-1036 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 15, 2008).