A federal court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by three human resources employees who claimed they were subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment based on their age. According to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the employees failed to show they suffered adverse employment actions or that the alleged harassment was age-based. Bell v. Raytheon Company, No. 3:08-cv-00702-G-BF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (July 31, 2009).

Factual Background

John Bell, Robert Highland, and Carl Cox are all long-time employees in Raytheon Company’s Human Resources department. Bell, Highland, and Cox, all in their late 50’s or early 60’s, filed suit against Raytheon alleging that the Vice President of Human Resources, John Malanowski, “subjected [them] to a steady barrage of unfair criticism, humiliating character attacks, belittling comments, and condescending treatment.”

Cox claimed that although Tim Harris, Malanowski’s predecessor, recommended that Cox be considered for a promotion, Malanowski believed that Cox was not qualified for the position. Susan Rogers, who was in her late 40s at the time, was eventually hired for the job.

Highland’s conflict with Malanowski stemmed from plans for a reduction in force (RIF). Highland, Malanowski, and others had prepared a recommendation regarding who would be affected by the RIF. Highland, believing he was following the usual RIF procedure, notified the affected employees before a key official had seen the final RIF recommendation.

When Malanowski discovered that Highland had notified the affected employees, Highland claims Malanowski “launched into a tirade” against him, shouting at him for approximately 20 to 30 minutes and finally throwing him out of the office. Malanowski then suspended Highland pending an investigation, which concluded that Highland had complied with previous RIF procedures but recommended he receive a written warning “for miscommunicating with Malanowski.” Malanowski then issued Highland a final written warning, which is the last step in Raytheon’s progressive discipline process.

Finally, Bell claimed that Malanowski gradually transferred his duties to younger employees. Bell also claimed that Malanowski “trumped up a charge of inappropriate touching against [him].” According to Bell, he placed his hand on a co-worker’s shoulder, and the co-worker told Malanowski that the touch did not offend her. Malanowski, nevertheless, reprimanded Bell and “did not rescind the accusation or apologize.”

As evidence of age bias, the plaintiffs also alleged that Raytheon identified employees under the age of 35 as “People on the Move” or “High Potential Employees” and that Cox was instructed to remove employees over the age of 40 or “more senior people” from the list.

The plaintiffs also pointed to an interview in which Senior Vice President of Human Resources Keith Peden, Malanowski’s boss, discussed Raytheon’s Leadership Development Program (LDP), which was designed to develop the future leaders of Raytheon. During the interview, Peden stated, “The senior leadership team and I have to get more comfortable working through generational layers. We understand that the younger generations can multitask and we need to use this to our advantage.” Peden also stated that Raytheon is “getting better at offering stretch assignments to those in the younger generations.”

In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Harris had said Raytheon’s corporate office had concerns about “too much seniority” in the HR department and that Raytheon was “looking for new blood.” Finally, Harris claimed that Peden and other officials pressured him to make changes to the HR department’s leadership team because it had become “stagnant.”

Finally, the plaintiffs presented evidence that Malanowski made a statement that he intended to “reorganize the [HR] department and [was going to] find ways to do more with less, or more with cheaper people.”

As a result, the three employees filed suit in federal court alleging age discrimination and a hostile work environment. Raytheon denied the allegations and moved for summary judgment. In pursuing their claims, the plaintiffs took nine depositions in four different states.

Legal Analysis

The court first considered Cox’s age discrimination claim. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (June 18, 2009), the court found that to succeed on this claim, Cox must show that age was the but-for cause of Raytheon choosing Rogers over Cox. To show that Raytheon was motivated by age when it did not select him for promotion, Cox offered evidence of Raytheon’s LDP, the “People on the Move” list, and a series of remarks. In particular, Cox cited Malanowski’s use of the phrases “contemporary skills” and “next generation” in a PowerPoint presentation he made to the HR department.

The court found that Malanowski’s statements were not proximate in time or related to the employment decision at issue (whether Cox would receive the promotion). Thus, the court ruled that the phrases were not sufficient evidence of age discrimination.

With regard to the statements made to Harris, the court noted that since the plaintiffs did not know who made the comment about “too much seniority,” it could not determine whether the comment was made by anyone who had authority over whether to hire Cox. Moreover, since it was not clear when the statements were made, the court was unable to determine whether they were related to the decision. Thus, the court concluded that the statements made to Harris were not sufficient evidence of age discrimination.

With regard to Malanowski’s statement regarding hiring “cheaper people,” the court noted that the Fifth Circuit has held that it is not discriminatory to make employment decisions on the basis of salary. Moreover, since it is not clear that the statement was related to the decision not to promote Cox, the court concluded that Malanowski’s statement is not sufficient to establish age discrimination.

The court next turned to the business practices cited by Cox, namely the LPD and the “People on the Move” list. The court refused to hold that the existence of Raytheon’s LDP, which was designed to develop the future company leaders, is evidence of age discrimination. The court also ruled that Peden’s interview statements were not related to the decision not to promote Cox and did not reflect an ageist attitude. Finally, the court concluded that there was no evidence that the list of “People on the Move” had any connection with Cox not being selected for the promotion. Thus, the court held that the workers did not show that age was the but-for cause of Cox’s non-selection for the promotion. The court, therefore, granted Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

The court next turned to Highland’s claim that Raytheon discriminated against him on the basis of his age by issuing him a final written warning as punishment for his actions related to the RIF. The court, however, agreed with Raytheon that Highland’s claim should fail because he did not suffer an adverse employment action. Although Highland was temporarily suspended with pay, his employment status, benefits, or responsibilities did not change. Thus, neither the final written warning nor the suspension constituted an adverse employment action. The court concluded that Highland did not state a prima facie claim of age discrimination and therefore granted Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment.

The court arrived at the same conclusion with regard to Bell’s claims that many of his responsibilities were transferred to younger employees, causing him to lose “considerable stature in the Garland HR department,” and that Malanowski trumped up inappropriate touching charges against him. The court found that the alleged loss of job responsibilities, ostracism in the workplace, and false accusations did not constitute adverse employment actions. Thus, the court granted Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment on Bell’s claim as well.

Finally, the court also rejected the employees’ hostile work environment claim. The workers claimed that Malanowski treated young employees more favorably while subjecting them to ongoing harassment. The court found that none of the incidents of alleged harassment were related to the employees’ age. Moreover, the court found that Malanowski’s alleged yelling and belittling were insufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment. According to the court, although Malanowski “lost his temper,” his behavior was not against the law. Thus, the court granted Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment on the employees’ hostile work environment claim.

Practical Impact

The judge's ruling in this case is a great victory for employers, as it reinforces the fact that only mistreatment based on a prohibited characteristic is unlawful. Allegations of a boss being rude are insufficient to sustain a violation.