Consistent documentation of poor performance defeats age discrimination claim

On January 9, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) in favor of an employer that had well-documented proof of an employee’s continued failure to meet the expected level of performance. The court found the employee’s age discrimination suit faltered because he failed to demonstrate age played a role in his termination.

Background

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits employers from refusing to hire, employ, or discharge an employee unless justified by lawful considerations other than protected characteristics, such as age. Under the NJLAD, an employee must prove:

• They were a member of a protected group;
• Their job performance met the employer’s legitimate expectations;
• They were terminated; and
• The employer replaced or sought to replace them.

Facts

Andrew Krassowski was a senior software engineer in Bloomberg’s research and development department. He filed a lawsuit against the company alleging he was wrongfully terminated based on his age.

According to Krassowski, Bloomberg had a “scheme” intended to replace older workers with persons who were younger, less experienced, and less qualified. At the time he was hired, he was 53 years old. He interviewed with a 43-year-old engineer team leader who later became his manager.