AGE DISCRIMINATION LEGAL CASE

 

 

1. HR Legal topic, as approved by Dr. Gresch:

Age Discrimination

2. HR functions that are the focus of this case

The work of the Human Resource department is to ensure that the organization is provided with the structure and the ability to help it meets its needs through proper employee management (Lawler, Boudreau & University of Southern California, 2009). This means dealing with fair recruitment, training, discipline and even employment termination. This department should ensure that employees are fairly treated without any form of discrimination.

3. APA style list of all information sources

• Bobby Nickel v. Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al., [2016] B257420 http://verdictsearch.com/verdict/company-discriminated-against-him-based-on-age-plaintiff/
• Law, N., & Law, N. (2016). Nickel v. Staples – $16M Age Discrimination Verdict Upheld by California Court. Retrieved from https://www.orangecountyemploymentlawyersblog.com/nickel-v-staples-16m-age-discrimination-verdict-upheld-california-court/
• Lawler, E. E., Boudreau, J. W., & University of Southern California. (2009). Achieving excellence in human resources management: An assessment of human resource functions. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Business Books.

4. Case information details
5. Case citation (i.e. plaintiff v defendant). Plaintiff must be a current or former employee (or applicant) of the defendant.  Defendant should be the employer.

 

Bobby Dean Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,

Court of Appeal of the State of California

1. Date of verdict (Must be within the last 5 years):

 

2016

1. What was/were the name(s) of each of the law(s) upon which the case was based? (No cases from outside the U.S.).

 

Violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

1. Classify each law as either federal, state, local law

State law

1. Allegation;

 (i) What was the claim and argument of the plaintiff (employee/s)?

Bobby Nickel 66, the plaintiff worked as a facility supervisor for Staples Contract & Commercial Inc. where he was unethically dismissed from his work position. Bobby claimed that the company harassed, discriminated against and in the end unfairly terminated his job contract because he an older employee and because he was a highly compensated employee of the company (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,). The plaintiff went ahead to explain that he had worked in the company for nine years during which he had received very positive job reviews. He went ahead to illustrate that he during his working years, he was constantly harassed by the other employees because he was older and they used names such as ‘old goat’ and ‘old coat’ to refer to him which was depressing (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,).

 Bobby illustrated that the company was looking for a way to get rid of old people within the company and constant remarks on the issues were made by Marrero the manager for instance ‘old people are starting to drag and slow down, ‘we need young energetic people’ (Law & Law, 2016). Bobby and the other older people were constantly suspended for minor offenses something that did not apply when it came to the younger generation. Bobby’s job was terminated for allegedly taking a bell pepper from the company cafeteria to which he claims that it was accepted to take food from the cafeteria after hours and then make payments later (Law & Law, 2016).

  (ii) What was the argument of the defendant (employer)?

The defendant Staples through Marrero claimed that termination of Bobby’s contract was not in any way discriminatory. They claim that Bobby had received two warnings for wrongful doings within the company during the year 2009 from the human resource department (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,). Marrero claimed that Bobby had stolen a bell pepper from the cafeteria and the company did not tolerate theft cases hence the termination.

(iii) In your own words, outline the events that occurred in the workplace that led up to the lawsuit. Provide a numbered sequence to help explain a long sequence of events.  Do not simply cut and paste text from legal documents (plagiarism); however you are welcome to rephrase the information using your own words (Minimum ½ page = 10 lines with 1” page margins).

 Bobby Nickel had worked for corporate Express that was later purchased by Staples Inc. for nine years during which he never had any serious disciplinary issues, except for the year 2009 where he received two warning from the human resources for minor issues (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,). Bobby had all through his nine years work history received positive job reviews. After the integration between Corporate Express and Staple Inc., Bobby continued with his work as the facility manager and he began reporting to Lionel Marrero who was his new manager.

 Marrero was interested in cutting costs and he advocated for young energy which would be cheaper since most of the employees would be part time based. Marrero hence started harassing the older employees which included Bobby and over working them to try and force them to retirement. Bobby explains that he was constantly harassed but stood his ground until his termination that was brought about by the theft accusation of a 0.68 U.S dollars bell pepper from the cafeteria which he later paid for.

1. Outcomes

• In which party’s favor did the court rule? Must be a court ruling by judge or jury - no defendant settlements (consent decrees) with EEOC, DOJ or OSHA.

The court jury ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

• What rationale (or reasoning) did the court provide for its decision? (Minimum ¼ page = 5 lines with 1” page margins).

 The court cited (Hartt v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1401-1402) and (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 (Guz)) to illustrate that age discrimination for employees is prohibited by FEHA. Bobby was a competent employee despite his age and so his termination was discriminatory and wrong (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,). The court used testimonies from the other employees to justify the fact that the defendant indeed had a motive of eliminating he older employees in order to cut costs and the discriminatory statements by Marrero was also used as evidence against the defendants.

   (iii) If the ruling was against the employer, what did the court require the employer to do (what was the penalty)? Include the amount of the monetary awards ($USD).

 The court ruled that the defendant would pay three millions of dollars in compensatory harms and about twenty two millions of dollars in punitive harms.  After the defendants sought for a new trial the punitive damages were later reduced to thirteen millions of dollars (Bobby Nickel v.  Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., et al.,).

5. Lessons learnt from the case

(a) What were the important factors in determining the outcome of the case?    What are lessons learned for employees at other organizations who may be considering bringing a similar case – what specific actions should an employee take (and avoid) to increase their odds of winning their case? (Minimum ½ page discussion = 10+ lines with 1” page margins).

This case was ruled in favour of the plaintiff because most of the evidence that was presented was all against the defendants. The defendants did not present any strong argument in regard to why they terminated the employee which made it very easy for the judgement against them to be made. Any employee considering making an age discrimination case should ensure that they have strong evidence against their employers and ensure that other employees in that company is willing to testify on their side.

(b) Based on this decision, what specific actions do you recommend other employers take to prevent/avoid similar lawsuits or increase their odds of winning a similar lawsuit? (Minimum ½ page discussion = 10+ lines with 1” page margins)

Employers should ensure that they follow all the laws that have been implemented to ensure that they provide a fair work environment for all their employees. They ensure that no wrongful terminations are made by their managements  and that proper communication ethics are followed in every work setting to avoid any harassment legal cases on them. Every employee has a right to a peaceful work environment, without any retirement or age based pressures being forced on them. The management should act in an ethical manner understanding that they are the role models for the other employees and so their actions have an effect on the whole human resource.

(c) What is your personal reaction to this case?  Do you believe the law and the ruling were both fair- why or why not?  How would you change the law or verdict to be more fair? (Minimum ½ page response = 10+ lines with 1” page margins).

Discrimination is wrong in any basis whether age, colour or gender. The ruling in this case was fair and I would not change any detail about it. The case clearly shows that the plaintiff was a hard working individual who constantly received positive reviews for his good work despite his age. The defendants do not at any point throughout the case provide any complaints about his work or bad conducts except for two scenarios in all the nine years that he worked with them. The actions of the defendants were selfish; the plaintiff’s termination was unfair and unnecessary.