Gerald Woythal's age discrimination case against Tex-Tenn

¶ … plaintiff sued for age discrimination. The writer explores the case, analyzes the issues of the case and determines whether or not the plaintiff proved his case. There were two sources used to complete this paper.

Advances in medical science have made it possible to live longer than ever before. This increase in life span has also increased the number of years that many people choose to work. There are many benefits to working including personal fulfillment, additional income and social opportunities that would otherwise be missed. But what happens when a company decides an employee is to old to be productive? What happens when the company realizes that it can lay off an older worker and bring in two younger workers for the same price? These are issues being faced across the nation on a frequent basis by an aging workforce. The nation's legislatures have made it illegal to intentionally discriminate against anyone based on their age. Each week America's courts hear cases in which suits have been filed claiming age discrimination. The courts are charged with ascertaining whether true age discrimination actually occurred, or whether other issues are present and the person simply happens to be older. While the courts work to untangle the mess and determine the answer, businesses can take steps to protect themselves from age discrimination suits by documenting actions concerning all employees and being sure not to make any decisions that can adversely affect the employee that are based on the employee's age. Not all age discrimination claims turn out to be about age. In one case, the plaintiff believed he was fired because of his age but in actuality he quit on his on accord instead of get motivated about his job. It is in cases such as this one that the court and the business must be sure that age did not play a part in the employee no longer working.

THE CASE

Before one can determine whether or not the former employee of the company had a case, one needs to understand the background of the case.

This is the case of Gerald Woythal, who was one of the original founders of a company called Tex-Tenn. Woythal began working at the company in 1981 as a founding investor. He spent his career as an engineer and was the chief engineer for this company from 1988 to 1993.

For most of the time that he worked at the company he only had to answer to the president of the company, Mr. Seifert. According to Woythal, he and Seifert got along well and had no problems. The problems began when Seifert hired an operations manager in 1993.

Mr. Carico was the operations manager who was hired for the job. Shortly after he came on board, the president of the company noticed that Woythal was no longer enthusiastic about his job. He didn't seem to care what happened to the company and he stopped having suggestions or inputs about the future of the company. Seifert asked Carico to talk to him about it but they got nowhere. Rumors were circulating through the company that Woythal was going to retire very shortly. This made the president nervous and he hired an assistant engineer who was 39 years old. In the meantime he instructed the operations manager to continue finding out what Woythal's plans were regarding retirement. According to testimony Woythal was evasive only saying that he planned to work full time at least until he was 70 years old. Woythal tells a different story. He stated that the operations manager began to pressure him to retire and in a final conversation fired him because of his age.

Carico said he never fired the man but told him if he couldn't get excited about the job and involved with the company again it might be best if he left. He states he gave Woythal a month to decide if he wanted to leave or stay. When the president heard that Woythal believed he was being fired, he went to him and told him he didn't want him to leave and to keep his keys in case he ever wanted to come back to work.

On the 30th day from that final talk with the operations manager, Woythal packed his office up and left. The following day, the company promoted the assistant to the position of chief engineer and Woythal filed a suit alleging age discrimination.

ANALYSIS

The analysis of this case brings to light several mistakes that were made by the business. This analysis will not only serve to determine whether Woythal had a case, but will also illuminate steps that should have been taken on the part of the company to protect itself from such a suit.

The first issue was the animosity felt between Woythal and Cirico. Woythal stated that he felt Carico was not available when needed, while Carico felt that Woythal displayed apathy about the company's future.

Woythal had been a founding investor in the company. He had been the chief engineer for several years before Carico's arrival. It appears that there were hard feelings on the part of Woythal when Carico came to work at the company. He may have felt that Seifert's failure to consult him about creating the operational manager position and the decision about who to hire was an early indicator of what Woythal believed was a premeditated plot to force him into retirement based on his age.

This issue could have been avoided by taking the time to inform Woythal of the plan to create an operational manager position and get his input about what type of person should be hired to fill the position. While the president had the right to handle it without any input from Woythal, the fact that Woythal was a founding investor and would now have to answer to the operational manager, gave significance to his involvement in the matter.

The decision not to consult him or have him take part in the hiring of the person laid the foundation for animosity between the t One of the most important things that came to light during this case was the fact that the company did not document the conversations between Woythal and Carico and Woythal and Seifert and Carico.

One of the most important things that a business can do is to document the conversations that are held between employees. Whether it is a discussion about a possible raise, a question about possible retirement or the decision to hire an assistant if the business had documented the information that was exchanged within the meetings regarding Woythal and others it would have saved everyone time in determining whether a suit was feasible and if so based on what actions from the company.

Documentation is possibly one of the most important if not the most important thing that a business can do to protect itself from liability. A paper trail allows proof and evidence of what was done and when without later having to rely on memory in a courtroom.

In addition everyone in the meeting should sign a copy of the documentation stating that they agree with its contents, or if they do not agree with the contents how they see the meeting and its outcome.

In this case three very important conversations took place that should have been documented and were not. The first was when Seirfert talked with Carico and told him about the concerns he had regarding Woythal. It should have been documented that he asked the OM to find out about the plans to retire that had been circulating the company.

The second conversation that should have been documented was when Carico asked Woythal about his future plans.

This would have protected the company from having to defend itself from Woyhtal's interpretation of the conversation.

The final conversation that should have been documented was the conversation in which Carico states that he told Woythal he needed to get interested in his job and the company again or find somewhere else to go.

This conversation was instrumental in the separation between Woythal and the company and it was very important to document the contents.

The issue involving Woythal's belief that he had been fired for age discrimination could have easily been addressed had conversations been documented along the way. It could have cleared up his misunderstanding and it could have provided protection for the company in the event of litigation.

One of the issues that this case seems to hinge on is the fact that the assistant engineer was hired without Woythal's input.

Woythal was informed that an assistant was going to be hired. According to testimony he was supportive and in favor of that decision. However, for reasons that were not clearly explained during the trial, the president and the operations manager made the decision not to include Woythal in the recruiting and hiring process. This is one area of the law suit that is confusing.

On the one hand the president and the operations manager told Woythal that he needed to get interested in the future of the company again and show interest in his department and his job, however, when the time came to hire an assistant for Woythal, who had voiced approval of the move, he was not given the opportunity to help find the candidate to fill the position.

The company could have helped to prevent the suit by not giving the appearance that it was trying to force Woythal out of his job so that they could give it to the younger, less expensive engineer.

Asking Woythal to sift through resumes and to interview the potential candidates so that he could choose the assistant he believed he could work well with would have been the proper way to handle the situation.

The way it was done gave the appearance that decisions were being made about his department and his future with the company without including him. This is often seen as a classic signal that someone may be let go in the near future.

Woythal sued for age discrimination believing that he was forced out by termination and that act caused him to lose income he would have made by continuing to work. If the plaintiffs in such cases can prove they were forced to retire due to their age they can win damages that are many times the income they would have received had they continued to work. In the case of Johnson v. St. Of Cal. Dept. Of Corr., #BC288518, L.A. Co. Super. (verdict 2005) Johnson was awarded $20 million dollars when he was forced into retirement based on the fact that he was older.

The final issue was the fact that the assistant who was hired without Woythal's input happened to be qualified enough to become the chief engineer one day after Woythal left the company.

This was again an issue that could have been avoided had Woythal been encouraged to take part in the recruitment and hiring of his own assistant.

DECISION

While many former employees in the nation have proven their case of age discrimination, this one failed to meet its burden. There are several elements of the events that occurred that prove Woythal was not let go because of age.

The most important factor was the fact that Siefert was initially concerned about Woythal's lack of enthusiasm for the company. He talked to Carico about this issue and asked him to address is with Woythal. They did have a conversation about his plans and upcoming projects. While Woythal does not believe the conversation centered on his apathy for the company's future, the fact that Seifert and Carico testified that Seifert came to Carico with his concerns indicate that there was a problem with Woythal's work standard and level of quality that had nothing to do with his age.

In addition, Woythal claims that he was pressured to retire but could only point to one or two conversations. Within those conversations all parties reported that they were general and curious by nature. Woythal was said to have been telling coworkers that he did plan to retire in short order. The fact that he was one of the founding investors made that rumor and his actions relevant to the company's future plans.

It was not unreasonable for Carico to ask Woythal what his plans for the future were.

The final aspect of the situation that show Woythal was not terminated for his age was the fact that he continued to work for an entire month before leaving and that he was encouraged to keep his keys to the building in case he changed his mind.

These are two elements that contradict his claim that he was fired and for age discrimination. The fact remains that his work production and quality began to suffer before he left the company. The president noticed his apathetic attitude and asked the operations manager to try and motivate Woythal.

The company didn't actually fire Woythal, however Woythal believed that it did. Even if that belief is why Woythal left at the end of December, the problem was never about his age, it was about his work performance.

Nowhere in the suit does it mention anyone discussing his age or how his age impacts the company. He was talked to because he began to slow down as he got closer to retiring as he told co-workers he was planning to do.

CONCLUSION

While Woythal failed to prove his case of age discrimination the case does bring to light several things that the company should have done to prevent liability. Documentation is a key element to any successful defense. Had the conversations about his work performance been documented the company would have had an easier time proving what the real issue was. In addition had Woythal been given some authority over who his assistant was to be he would have been less apt to feel left out of the loop when the change took place. It is important for businesses to protect themselves from the perception of wrongdoing even if that perception is mistaken. This can be done with careful documentation of key decisions and events, care not to make statements that can be construed as discriminatory, and seeking legal counsel any time there are doubts about an upcoming action or decision to be made.