June 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 29

protected group; (3) evidence, statistical
or otherwise, that similarly
situated employees outside of
the protected group systematically
receive better treatment; and (4)
evidence that the employer offered
a pretextual reason for an adverse
employment action.
In addition, the court noted a
plaintiff could proceed with an
ADEA claim by coming forward
with evidence that established the
following:
(1) she is a member of a protected
class, (2) she was meeting
the defendant's legitimate expectations,
(3) she suffered an adverse
employment action, and (4) similarly
situated employees who were
not members of her protected class
were treated more favorably.
According to the federal district
court, if Plaintiff produced such
evidence, " the burden shifts to
the defendant to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason
for the adverse employment
action. " In light of a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason, the
burden of proof would then shift
back to Plaintiff " to submit evidence
that the employer's explanation
is pretextual. "
Changing the Culture
Plaintiff had claimed her evidence,
when viewed as a whole, included
" enough circumstantial evidence
of age discrimination to support a
verdict in her favor. " In so doing,
Plaintiff contended the following
" statements and behavior of her
supervisors "
provided
" evidence
of pretext " :
(1) comments about changing
the culture at the Park District;
(2) phrases by the Facility Manager
supervisor about the need for
something new; (3) a perception
that older employees were treated
worse than younger employees;
and (4) complaints about age discrimination
to the EEOC by other
older employees.
In particular,
age
discrimination
comments had not been directed at
Plaintiff's job performance.
Further, the court found the suPlaintiff
claimed
motivated
young management in the Park
District who wanted " to change
the culture at the Park District and
push the older employees out. " In
so doing, Plaintiff had cited " the
ages of the new management, all
of whom were between 27 and 37
years old. "
The federal district court rejected
this argument. In the opinion
of the court, " the relative ages of
the terminating and terminated
employee are relatively unimportant "
in establishing ADEA discrimination.
Moreover, the court
found " the desire to establish a
new management philosophy by
assembling a new management
team that displaces older employees
does not ipso facto [i.e.,
in and of itself] constitute ADEA
discrimination " :
Companies, businesses, and
government agencies routinely go
through culture changes. That's
how they survive long term in an
ever-changing world. A desire for
a new approach might add a little
something to the mix when evaluating
a discrimination claim, but
it doesn't add much.
Workplace Comments
Similarly, the federal district court
found
" stray " workplace comments
and remarks by Plaintiff's
supervisor
regarding " the
need
for a fresh approach " were not
necessarily " an expression of bias
against older employees " and such
pervisor's remarks lacked a direct
link to the Park District's termination
decision. Instead, the court
found the supervisor's statements
were made " in the context of innovating
the Park District's programming
and improving client
experiences " and were not indicative
of " the need for a new approach
that targeted the old and
spared the young. "
As noted by the federal district
court, " age-based derogatory remarks
made around the time of
and in reference to an employment
action are relevant to a finding of
discrimination. " In this particular
instance, however, the court found
no indication whether or not the
supervisor's comments " took place
around the time of the termination. "
In the opinion of the court:
" Without a temporal link, the comments
don't lend much support to
the notion that Plaintiff's age was
the reason for her termination. "
" Plaintiff believed her
termination had nothing to do
with her performance. Instead,
Plaintiff claimed 'the Park
District let her go because of
age discrimination.' "
Plaintiff also had claimed her
supervisor was more friendly with
younger employees while micromanaging
and being " harsh and
rude to older employees. " In the
opinion of the federal district court,
rude and offensive comments by a
micromanaging boss " doesn't say
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | JUNE 2 0 22 | Parks & Recreation
29
June 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2022 - Parks & Recreation
