Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh (Summary)

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, Civil Action No. 13-131 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a nurse’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) against a hospital holding that the nurse failed to establish that she was the victim of intentional discrimination.

Plaintiff, a 61-year-old nurse, was employed at defendant hospital and within a five-month period was written up three times for cursing around a patient and his family, confronting the leadership staff, and leaving a shift without completing a patient’s history and physical. The nurse was terminated after the last incident and brought a claim under the ADEA.

The court stated that the nurse proved that she was at least 40 years old, suffered an adverse employment decision and was qualified for the position, thus satisfying three of the four elements for a case of prima facie discrimination. Therefore, the sole dispute was whether she satisfied the forth element – can an inference of discrimination be made because younger employees replaced the nurse.

The court held that the nurse did not satisfy the fourth element because there was no evidence in the record regarding the ages of the new employees, or whether the employees assumed the duties of the nurse. The court also found that the fourth element was not satisfied because requiring her to prove that she was replaced by a younger employee “eliminates no common, lawful reasons for her discharge and is not necessarily inconsistent with [her] ultimate burden of showing she suffered intentional discrimination because of her age.” Thus, the court concluded that the nurse did not put forth evidence that would permit an inference of intentional discrimination.

Also, the court stated that even if the nurse did establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the hospital terminated her for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and there was no indication that these reasons were pretextural. Therefore, although the nurse mentioned that she intended to retire at 65, the court stated that it was not an unusual employment practice to ask an employee how long he or she intends to work, and that it might be prudent for future staffing needs, given the large turnover experienced by the nursing staff at the hospital.