This employee is just “not a good fit” and we need to “hea[d] in a different direction” on the account, so we will be parting ways. How many times have we heard this rationalization for an employee termination?
Last week, an Ohio federal court denied summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a 58-year-old former employee who sued for age discrimination after being fired. The former employee had met or exceeded sales goals but was told he was not a “good fit” to work on newly acquired accounts of his employer, a licensed sportswear company, and so they were “heading in a different direction” on the account. The employer then promoted a younger employee to fill the role. The plaintiff also presented evidence that the employer had “abruptly fired” three other account managers, also over 50 years old.
The case serves as a strong reminder to avoid use of vague and conclusory terminology in termination decisions, documentation and scripts, which, the court found, a jury could perceive as evidence of pretext for discrimination.