Deference Given to Employer's Business Decisions in Bias Case
There are few more settled tenets in employment discrimination law than that the court does not sit as a "super-personnel department that re-examines the employer's business decisions."
August 11, 2015 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
There are few more settled tenets in employment discrimination law than that the court does not sit as a “super-personnel department that re-examines the employer's business decisions.” In the recent case of Andersen v. Mack Trucks, No. 11-2239, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99388 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2015) (Surrick, J.), the court repeatedly invoked this principle in granting summary judgment to the employer.
|Reduction in force
Bruce Andersen was 62 years old, and had worked for Mack Trucks Inc. in Allentown for 38 years when his position as a human resources business partner (HRBP) was eliminated in 2009. At the time, Andersen was the second oldest HRBP in the company and was one of only two men in the human resources department, according to the opinion. The HRBPs reported to Lesley Billow, senior vice president of human resources.
In 2008, Mack announced that it would be closing its operations in Allentown. Most of the groups working with Andersen and a subordinate, Sherri Palopoli, remained in Allentown and their jobs continued. Palopoli was primarily responsible for implementing and interpreting the collective bargaining agreement—applicable to the union employees. Her experience in this area was admittedly superior to that of Andersen because, as Andersen observed, she did it “'100 percent of the time,'” the opinion said.
Bonnie Miller, a 65-year-old HRBP working in Allentown, was responsible for implementing the reduction-in-force but was offered the opportunity to continue her employment at Mack's facility in Greensboro, North Carolina. When she declined to transfer, Miller was terminated in fall 2010, the opinion said.
|Lack of relevant experience
In 2009, as the economic downturn continued, Billow sought to reduce her staff further. She determined that Andersen's position could be eliminated and that Palopoli could assume his “minor day-to-day human resources duties,” the opinion said. This was determined to be preferable than terminating Palopoli because Billow believed that Palopoli could continue to work with that half of the remaining Allentown workforce that was unionized without any additional training—while “it would have been a difficult task” for Andersen to get up to speed on the labor contracts at the facility. While Palopoli continued in her pre-RIF role for a short while, she was promoted twice in the next 10 months—ultimately becoming an HRBP (after which she was no longer responsible for the labor contracts).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElder Litigators Confront Tough Questions in Last Act of Careers
Dechert Partners With Wharton School for Associate-Level Business Training Program
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 4Data-Driven Legal Strategies
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250