6th Circuit grants predictability in test for determining ADEA claims

The 6th Circuit recently issued an opinion involving a former bank teller claiming age discrimination against her former employer. Because she failed to show the bank's stated reason for firing her—insubordination—was actually a pretext (a cover-up) for age bias, the court affirmed dismissal of her claim.

Facts

Melanie Pelcha worked as a bank teller for Watch Hill Bank. Her supervisor instituted a new policy requiring written requests for any time out of the office. When she wanted to take a few hours off, she resisted the policy and initially told her supervisor a written request wasn't required under the employee handbook.

Pelcha eventually submitted a written form, but not until after the deadline put in place. The bank fired her for insubordination. She sued for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Court's opinion

The bank obtained summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) on Pelcha's ADEA claims based on the fact she couldn't establish she was terminated "because of her age." The 6th Circuit agreed and affirmed the decision.

Notably, the appeals court stated the ADEA prohibits employers from terminating employees "because of such individual's age." It rejected Pelcha's argument that under the recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County (dealing with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), an employee with an ADEA claim need show only her age was one of multiple factors in her termination, instead of the sole reason. Pelcha v. MW Bancorp Inc., 6th Cir., No. 20-03511, 1/12/21.

Takeaway