Facts of the case
Robert Senske was fired from Sybase, Inc. The management of this company stated that his performance had been unsatisfactory; in particular, this worker did not complete his paperwork properly. Furthermore, he was continuously late for managerial meetings. Finally, clients often complained about his performance. In contrast, Robert Senske stated that the management had discriminated against him on the basis of his age, while other criticisms had just been pretexts. It should be mentioned that Senske was older than 52 at the time of his dismissal. The company and the employee could not resolve this conflict. In turn, this disagreement brought the parties to the court.
Procedural history
This case was initially tried at the district court, and at this level, the judges decided that the management of Sybase, Inc had not discriminated against Robert Senske. Later, this case was transferred to the Court of Appeals because the plaintiff did not accept the decision of the district court. These are the main events that preceded this case.
Key Issues
Robert Senske was eligible for the protection granted in the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Senske stated that the criticisms of his performance had just been pretext arguments for terminating his employment. Moreover, he laid stress on the idea that the criticisms of his performance had not been justified because, in the previous year, he generated considerable revenues for the company. In turn, the true cause of his dismissal was his age. In contrast, the representatives of Sybase, Inc. argued that the plaintiff had not met the performance standards which were obligatory for other employees. According to them, the age of this person was completely irrelevant to this case. Therefore, they denied the violations of the ADEA.
Holding
The court postulated that the provisions of the ADEA have to be applied in this case. However, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that his age was the main cause of his dismissal. Moreover, his task was to show that he was disadvantaged relative to younger employees. Overall, the court decided in favor of Sybase, Inc. The following sections will explain the line of reasoning followed by the judges.
Rationale
The judges argued that Robert Senske had violated the norms set by the company. Apart from that, these requirements were set for other employees of this organization. For instance, one can speak about the necessity to file and update reports within specific timelines. Moreover, they were expected to come to the meetings on time. Furthermore, his performance in the previous year could hardly be attributed only to his effort.
Finally, the complaints of customers were also justified. Robert Senske’s behavior could threaten the performance of the company and its relations with customers. Additionally, there is no evidence that can show that Senske was disadvantaged relative to other employees, especially younger workers. So, his age was not the factor that shaped the decision of the management. Moreover, there is no evidence that can support Senske’s allegations. These are the main issues that were considered by the judges.
Judgment
This is why the court decided that the management did not discriminate against Robert Senske. Moreover, the plaintiff was not eligible for any compensation that can be guaranteed by the ADEA… Overall, the judges affirmed the decision of the district court. These are the main elements of this case.