Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of age. To prevail on an ADEA claim, it is not enough to show that a supervisor was biased against older employees. A successful plaintiff needs to show that she suffered an unfavorable employment action that she would not have suffered but for age discrimination. All illustrated by the recent case of Lavina D. Jernagin v. John M. McHugh, even if a supervisor refers to an employee as an "old-timer" and a "dinosaur," if age was not the "but for" cause of an unfavorable employment action, the plaintiff will be unable to recover.
Lavina Jernagin began civilian employment with the United States Army in 1997, working as a Logistics Management Specialist with the Army's Directorate of Logistics (DOL). In 2003 and 2005, Ms. Jernagin received annual performance ratings of "outstanding" or "excellent." In 2007, Sergeant Travania Fair and Pamela Kent became Ms. Jernagin's first and second line supervisors. Sergeant Fair considered Ms. Jernagin's performance below average. In July 2007, as part of a branch reorganization, Lawrence Lawson and Mary Costa became Ms. Jernagin's first and second line supervisors. At trial, witnesses testified that Ms. Costa had made several derogatory age-related statements toward Ms. Jernagin and her coworkers.
After close of the appraisal period, each first line supervisor was required to submit an annual performance appraisal for each employee including a written assessment and a recommended rating. Once the first line supervisor entered the appraisal, the second line supervisor reviewed the appraisal for compliance with regulations but could not change the rating or edit the assessment. If the appraisal complied with regulations, the second line supervisor signed off on its submission to the Pay Pool, a panel of higher level supervisors who would decide whether to approve the rating as final. The Pay Pool Manager entered the final rating. Ms. Costa was Ms. Jernagin's Pay Pool Manager.
Regulations dictated that Ms. Jernagin had to be rated on objectives designated by her prior supervisor, Sergeant Fair, because she had not worked under Mr. Lawson for at least ninety days. In 2007, while working under Mr. Lawson and Ms. Costa, Ms. Jernagin received an annual performance rating of "fair" or "2," the second lowest rating possible. Ms. Jernagin contended that Ms. Costa discriminated against her due to her age and ordered Mr. Lawson to give her a "2" rating.
Read the rest of the article at the Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.