Question

In Cotter v. Boeing, a 52 year old employee with 34 years on the job was downsized during a RIF. On a new performance scale prepared for the RIF, the one item at which she excelled was eliminated, and she scored badly, compared to a younger worker with less experience. The younger worker was retained. Earlier that same year, her supervisor had rated her as “doing a great job.” She sued under the ADEA, and the trial court entered Summary Judgment against her. On appeal, the court ruled:

1.	for the employee because she had proven age discrimination in her termination
	2.	for the employer, because the employee had not conclusively proven that she was terminated because of her age
	3.	for the employer, because the employee scored poorly on the performance scale
	4.	for the employee, because she had raised material questions of fact, so that summary judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for trial

Answer 1

(1) For the employee because she had proven age discrimination in her termination

The judgement declared that the Boeing was responsible for the intentionally downsizing cotter because of her age and Boeing appointed the new employee with less age. The court decided that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the performance assessment was a pretext for age discrimination. The court admitted that cotter is a good performer. The judgement came against the employer that discrimination cannot be justified on basis of age when the employee is a good performer with a satisfying level of performance.