734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Court finds enough evidence to move forward in age discrimination case against school district

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] Defendant-public school system (TPS) was improperly granted summary judgment on plaintiff-Scheick's age-discrimination claim because he raised a genuine issue whether age was the "but-for" cause of the defendants' decision not to renew his contract as high school principal. Scheick was 56 (almost 57) when TPS decided not to renew his contract. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment after finding that Scheick failed to present direct evidence of age discrimination, and did not make a prima facie showing of age discrimination or establish "pretext." The court reversed, finding that he offered direct evidence of age discrimination through certain statements made to him by the school's superintendent, including statements that "'they just want somebody younger.'" Although not all of the statements he presented were direct evidence of discrimination, two of the statements, "if believed, would require the conclusion that age was the but for cause of TPS's decision not to renew the contract." The superintendent's "statements about wanting 'someone younger' are not ambiguous and, if believed, do not require an inference to conclude that age was the but-for cause of the decision not to renew Scheick's contract." In its amicus curie brief, the EEOC argued that "direct evidence will always defeat an employer's motion for summary judgment with respect to claims under the ADEA." However, "Gross altered the burden of proof on the issue of causation and indicates that direct evidence of age discrimination may not always be sufficient to create a question of fact for trial in the ADEA context." Thus, "even when direct evidence of age discrimination has been offered, the question to be asked in deciding an employer's motion for summary judgment is whether the evidence, taken as a whole and in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude 'that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged employer decision.'" The court concluded that, "notwithstanding the evidence of dissatisfaction with Scheick's performance and the concurrent need to respond to the budget crisis, the evidence, taken as a whole and in the light most favorable to Scheick, is sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that Scheick's age was the but-for cause of TPS's decision not to renew the contract for his services. Although [the defendants] may ultimately prove otherwise, Scheick has met his burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial." Reversed and remanded.

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

What does Client and Attorney Privilege Mean?

How much should you tell your lawyer? The fifth amendment protects U.S. citizens from incriminating themselves, but how does that work with your attorney. We get this question all the time. Many people have heard about attorney confidentiality,...

FAMILY LAW 50: A Michigan Court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination when it is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY  Plaintiff and defendant have twin sons, but never married.  On August 13, 2008, the Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division in Montgomery County, Ohio established plaintiff as the legal father of the children and...

When You Should Contest a Will?

Wills usually go through without a problem. Well over 90% of wills have no issue making it through probate. However, there are several grounds you may have to contest a will. As a beneficiary, or someone who would gain from a will, there are legal...

What You Need to Know About Distracted Driving

A great U.S. freedom is the ability to drive the open roads. However, every year there are more than 20,000 car accidents in Michigan. Many of these accidents come from distracted driving and could have been avoided. Distracted driving is such a...

Reasons Your Will or Trust Could be Contested

Everyone reacts in their own way when a family member passes away. Emotions can run high, and people can react more strongly than they normally would. Some family members may feel cheated by what a will or trust grants them leading them to contest...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405