66-year-old man awarded $26 million in age discrimination lawsuit against Staples

LOS ANGELES – In what an attorney says is the largest award of its kind in Los Angeles legal history, a
66-year-old man was awarded $26 million by a jury that found he was discriminated against and
harassed based upon his age by his supervising managers at Staples.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury deliberated for parts of Tuesday and Wednesday before finding in
favor of Bobby Nickel. The panel awarded him $3.2 million in compensatory damages and more than
$22.8 million in punitive damages.

Bobby Dean Nickel, 64 when he lost his job, was hired by Corporate Express in August of 2002 as a
facilities manager. Staples Contract and Staples Inc. acquired Corporate Express in 2008.

For nine years, Nickel received positive job reviews, according to his Los Angeles Superior Court
lawsuit, filed in March 2012.

Because Corporate Express’ pay scale was higher than that of employees hired by Staples, Nickel
alleged in his complaint that his mangers wanted to discharge older, higher paid employees.

Nickel’s complaint also stated that he was a regular butt of jokes at staff meetings and was referred
to as “old coot” and “old goat.”

After he refused to resign when prompted to by a manager, he underwent a series of false

accusations and increasing levels of harassment from co- workers and a manager, including being
suspended for taking a bell pepper worth 68 cents from the company cafeteria, according to the
lawsuit.

A receptionist told Nickel she was ordered by management to provide a false statement about
Nickel’s conduct but she refused to do so, according to the lawsuit.

Defense attorneys denied any wrongdoing on the part of Staples and that Nickel suffered the
damages he claimed. They said taking of the bell pepper violated the company’s zero-tolerance
policy when it came to “dishonesty of any kind, including theft or misappropriation of company
property.”
The Most Interesting Case of Age Discrimination in the World

Dos Equis beer maker Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma Brewery doesn’t always discriminate, but when it
does, it appears to do so on the basis of age. Last week, the beer maker announced that it was
replacing its 77-year old most interesting man spokesman, Jonathan Goldsmith, with 41-year old
French actor Augustin Legrand. The company explained that the move was motivated by a desire to
attract younger drinkers, but denied that Mr. Goldsmith had “aged out” of the role.

Nonetheless, the statement remains an apparent admission of one of the most common forms of
employment discrimination seen in American workplaces today. Nearly a quarter of all charges filed
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allege that an employee’s age motivated
the adverse employment action made against them. Despite this disturbing trend, the Supreme
Court has ruled that plaintiffs in age discrimination cases carry a heightened burden. Not only must
they show that their age served as a motivating factor (as required in race and gender cases);
employees alleging age discrimination must also prove that their age was the but-for cause of their
termination, demotion, adverse promotion decision, etc.

While this change was certainly unhelpful, many employers have been disappointed to learn that it
does not insulate them from liability. The law still recognizes obvious discrimination when it sees it and
even creates a presumption of unlawful employment discrimination when, like Mr. Goldsmith, an
employee: (a) is over 40, (b) gets fired, (c) despite performing well, and (d) gets replaced by a
substantially younger individual. With this self-evident in Mr. Goldsmith’s case, it is Dos Equis’ burden to
put forward a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing its spokesman. To date, it has failed to
do so. Replacing Mr. Goldsmith with a French actor 36 years his junior in order to attract younger
drinkers is an admission that Mr. Goldsmith’s age was the problem. However, the company then
follows that admission with an explanation that it is not the company that is discriminatory, but
instead its customers are demanding a more youthful spokesman and the customer is always right.

The law has long been clear that pointing to a customer’s preference to excuse a discriminatory
employment decision is no defense. To allow businesses to follow such customer preferences would
only serve to entrench the stereotypes Congress sought to address in passing the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act way back in 1967. Instead, employers must look only to nondiscriminatory factors
in making its hiring, firing, promotion and compensation decisions. In doing so, customer biases and
stereotypes are challenged and shown to be wrong and the arc of the moral universe can continue
its long, arduous bend toward justice. Dos Equis appears to have gone in a different direction.

Where the employer fails to even articulate a legitimate reason for its decision, the jury is entitled to
conclude that the employee’s age was the but-for cause of his termination. While harming Mr.
Goldsmith may only make him more desirable (because, as the ads say, his blood is made of
cologne), such a public display apparent age discrimination harms us all.

https://www.ncemploymentattorneys.com/blog/the-most-interesting-case-of-age-discrimination-in-
the-world/
A 61-year-old salesman nicknamed ‘gramps’ who was fired from his job selling wedding rings at
Brown and Newirth has won his case for age discrimination

Alan Dove, who had worked for the jewellers for 25 years, was awarded more than £63,000 in
compensation after he brought an age discrimination and unfair dismissal case against his employer
when his employment was terminated in April 2015.

Despite not being a grandfather, he was called ‘gramps’ by the head of the sales team, Gareth
Thomas. Mr Thomas said he considered the nickname ‘an affectionate term of address’, but Mr Dove
found it disrespectful and hurtful.

Mr Dove also had some of his clients transferred from him to Mr Thomas. He was told by Director John
Ball that a client had complained that he was “too long in the tooth” – but this was later denied by
the client.

The Watford Employment Tribunal ruled that when Mr Dove was described as “long in the tooth”,
“old fashioned” and “traditional” these were negative references to his age.

The tribunal said: "Use of these phrases indicate views emanating from the customers which are
negative views almost certainly based on the claimant's age.

"He was dismissed, in essence, because some of the clients that he was dealing with had been
transferred to Mr Thomas by Mr Ball. This left, in Mr Ball's view, insufficient income to be generated by
the claimant.”

Sadly, Mr Dove is not alone in experiencing unfair dismissal based on his age. Age discrimination can
affect anyone in the UK regardless of what job you do. This case highlights an issue in the UK where
people in their late 50s and early 60s are finding their careers being brought to an abrupt halt.

Mr Dove deserved to be treated better by the company where he worked his way up to the point
where he was made responsible for middle England, South Wales and the Channel Islands.

There is no upper limit to compensation in cases where the unfair dismissal was because of a person’s
age. This is unlike normal unfair dismissal claims which are not discriminatory where there is a statutory
cap on the compensation.

Compensatory awards are based on the individual’s loss of earnings flowing from an unfair or
discriminatory dismissal. In a discrimination claim, an individual may also be awarded a sum for injury
to their feelings, which is based on how they have been affected by their treatment.

Unless it can be objectively justified, less favourable treatment at work because of age is unlawful
age discrimination. The defence that everyone in the sales team had nicknames was not justification
for the unfair treatment Mr Dove suffered when he was called ‘gramps’.

Slater and Gordon understand the difficult situations people suffer due to age discrimination at work.
We can provide you with immediate representation anywhere in England and Wales.

You can call our discrimination solicitors on freephone 0800 916 9060 anytime 24/7 or alternatively
contact us online and we will call you when you are able to speak with us.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/03/61-year-old-salesman-wins-age-
discrimination-case/
Texas Roadhouse to Pay $12 Million to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

BOSTON - Texas Roadhouse, a national, Kentucky-based restaurant chain, will pay $12 million and
furnish other relief to settle an age discrimin-ation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment
Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC had filed suit
seeking relief for a class of applicants the EEOC charged had been denied front-of-the-house
positions, such as servers, hosts, server assistants and bartenders, because of their age, 40 years and
older. As part of the settlement, Texas Roadhouse will change its hiring and recruiting practices.

The EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11732-DJC, filed in September 2011 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, alleged that Texas Roadhouse violated federal law by engaging in a
nationwide pattern or practice of age discrimination in hiring hourly front-of-the-house employees.
The case, which was scheduled for a retrial on May 15, 2017, had resulted in a hung jury after nearly a
four-week trial earlier this year.

"I am pleased to see this matter come to a mutually agreed-upon resolution," said EEOC Acting Chair
Victoria A. Lipnic. "As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) this year, it is as important as ever to recognize the very real consequences of age
discrimination and the need for job opportunities for older workers."

The consent decree resolving the case, which was approved by Judge Denise Casper today, sets up
a claims process that will identify and compensate those affected individuals age 40 and older who
applied to Texas Roadhouse for a front-of-the-house position between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31,
2014.

EEOC Deputy General Counsel James Lee said, "The decree includes robust terms that will ensure
that Texas Roadhouse complies with the law. As a national law enforcement agency, the EEOC will
vigorously protect the rights of job applicants to ensure that hiring decisions are based on abilities,
not age."

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree, which will be in force for three and a half
years, includes an injunction preventing Texas Roadhouse from discriminating on the basis of age in
the future. It also requires the company to establish a diversity director and pay for a decree
compliance monitor, who is charged with ensuring that the company complies with the decree's
terms. These terms require Texas Roadhouse to comply with the ADEA and to increase its recruitment
and hiring of employees age 40 and older for front-of-the-house positions.

"During this landmark year for the ADEA, everyone should recognize how far we still have to go in
eliminating age discrimination in the workplace," said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the New
York District Office.

EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry said, "Identifying and resolving age discrimination in
employment is critical for older Americans. The ability to find a new job should not be impeded
because an employer considers someone the wrong age."

Mark Penzel and Sara Smolik were the EEOC's lead trial attorneys for this case.

Penzel said, "Applicants rarely know that they have been denied a job because of their age. When
the Commission uncovers such evidence, it will act aggressively and doggedly to remedy the
violation."

Individuals who believe they may have been denied a front-of-the-house position at Texas
Roadhouse because of their age after Jan. 1, 2007, should contact the EEOC toll-free at (855) 556-
1129, or by e-mail at texasroadhouse.lawsuit@eeoc.gov and indicate "Consent Decree" in the
subject line.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment
discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC
news by subscribing to our email updates.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-31-17.cfm
A 48-Year-Old Looks for New Publishing Industry Job, Finds Age Discrimination
Last week I met a former colleague at Starbucks—or, as one Facebook “friend” put it recently, the
2009 version of a Depression-era breadline—for a cup of coffee.

The colleague, who I will refer to as “Jill,” was recently caught in the undertow of one of her
publishing company’s (sorry, “media” company’s) recent downsizings. “Jill” is an outstanding seller
and sales leader. A divorced mother of two beautiful girls—ages 11 and 14—she has produced great
top-line results everywhere she has been employed. The love her customers and staff members have
for her is exceeded only by the degree to which they respect her. She is, of course, very concerned
for her future and that of her daughters.

“Jill” has been hunting for a new gig for the better part of six months now. Her CV and phone
demeanor have earned her a number of face-to-face interviews. Because we have known each
other for close to 20 years, she was quite open about her job hunting experience.

She has interviewed with Web publishers, ad networks and magazine publishers, but she is not close
to landing. She had been well-compensated, but given the present state of media and the
economy, she has articulated her flexibility in this regard. I believe her. This woman is a straight-
shooter. About half-way through our meeting, she said something that sort of took me by surprise. This
vital, smart, attractive woman felt she was encountering ageism. She is all of 48.

Now, I know that age discrimination exists, but if a person with the ability to sell jets to airline
companies—she was offered such a position a couple of years back—is being denied employment
due to her age, then our industry has truly gone off the deep end.

One hiring manager at an ad network told her that the position for which she was interviewing—
director of advertising—was perhaps a bit too complicated for her. Come on dude, you guys are not
splitting the atom over there! Anyone with an average IQ, degree of creativity and some desire can
succeed in the world of digital ad sales. Great leadership, on the other hand, requires much more.

In tough times, leadership is everything. As a bit of a sports geek, I can site numerous instances of
championship teams that won the Big One precisely because they had experienced veterans
guiding less experienced players during crucial moments. Rarely does one see a team of rookies and
early-career players win a championship. If I need someone to lay down a crucial bunt in the
bottom of the eighth or drive a team downfield during the game’s final two minutes, I would prefer to
rely on a veteran that has done it numerous times.

Take heed of the analogy, media world, some of you are in the bottom of the eighth or the final two
minutes. Simple logic dictates that if someone has done the job many times, they have done so
successfully or they would not have had the opportunity to do the job so many times in the first place.

Advertising is often perceived as a young person’s game, but skills such as steadiness in the midst of a
storm, true customer-centric behavior, asking the right questions of prospects, motivating staff,
forecasting and managing up, down and laterally only get better over time. George Bernard Shaw
once said that youth is wasted on the young. He was so right.

So, hiring managers, the next time Jill shows up on the other side of your desk, throw all your
preconceived notions away and take the blinders off. Look at her accomplishments. Monitor her
passion and intellectual curiosity. We all saw Susan Boyle at age 48 set the world on fire and become
the next big thing. Did you know that Ray Kroc didn’t begin to build the McDonald’s brand until he
was 52? Did you know that Handel didn’t write the Messiah until he was 68? How about Roget
publishing his first Thesaurus when he was 73 or Grandma Moses picking up her first paint brush at 76?

You get the point—48, 49 or 60 for that matter are truly meaningless numbers.

http://www.foliomag.com/48-year-old-looks-new-publishing-industry-job-finds-age-
discrimination/
My Case, You Judge!
Guide Questions
1. What have been done?

2. Who are the violators?

3. How old was the victim?

4. What happened after the situation happened?

5. Pretend as a judge, what will be your/your groups’ judgement of the case?

My Case, You Judge!

Guide Questions
1. What have been done?

2. Who are the violators?

3. How old was the victim?

4. What happened after the situation happened?

5. Pretend as a judge, what will be your/your groups’ judgement of the case?

My Case, You Judge!

Guide Questions
1. What have been done?

2. Who are the violators?

3. How old was the victim?

4. What happened after the situation happened?

5. Pretend as a judge, what will be your/your groups’ judgement of the case?

My Case, You Judge!

Guide Questions
1. What have been done?

2. Who are the violators?

3. How old was the victim?

4. What happened after the situation happened?

5. Pretend as a judge, what will be your/your groups’ judgement of the case?