Former General Manager Can Proceed with Age Discrimination Case

Takeaway: This ruling should remind employers to consider a variety of risk mitigation measures to set themselves up for success in defending against wrongful termination claims. This includes employers issuing litigation holds as soon as they reasonably anticipate litigation, as lost or deleted emails and documents can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence at trial. 

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court should not have granted a company summary judgment on a former general manager’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) lawsuit because the key evidence the company relied upon to justify the general manager’s termination could not be authenticated and was inadmissible. Without this key evidence, the company had little evidentiary support for its position that it fired the general manager due to the culture at his restaurant, creating a triable issue of fact as to whether the company’s stated reason for the termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Toolkit: Employing Older Workers

The former general manager managed a company restaurant in Nashville, Tenn. By all objective metrics, the former general manager’s restaurant was one of the top performers in its market. Nonetheless, the company terminated the former general manager’s employment and replaced him with a 33-year-old employee with no managerial experience. 

The company claimed its termination decision stemmed from complaints about the “toxic culture” at the general manager’s restaurant. The former general manager claimed the termination decision stemmed from the company’s systematic efforts to replace older employees with younger ones. Based on this theory, the former general manager sued the company, alleging age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. 

Checklist: Employee Termination

Prior to the close of discovery (the pretrial process where parties exchange information), the former general manager filed a motion for sanctions based on the company’s undisputed spoliation of evidence. The former general manager sought remedies in the form of either fees and costs or the exclusion of a document (the “report” that the company relied on to support its termination decision). The report contained a compilation of notes drafted by an HR specialist and copies of emails discussing the former general manager. The district court granted the former general manager’s motion to the extent he sought fees and costs, but it denied the motion to the extent he sought to exclude the report.  

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, and it denied summary judgment for the former general manager, concluding that although the former general manager could establish a prima-facie case of age discrimination, he could not disprove the company’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination: “toxic culture.”  

On appeal, the former general manager challenged the authenticity of the report, the ruling on the motion for sanctions, and the grant of summary judgment for the company. 

As to the admissibility of the report, the 6th Circuit credited the former general manager’s arguments that the report was inadmissible because the company could not authenticate the report. No one from the company had an independent recollection of authoring the report or personal knowledge of the facts underlying the report. Furthermore, the document itself raised concerns about its authenticity and accuracy: It was not clear which portions of the report were notes, draft emails, or exchanged emails, and it was not clear if any relevant emails were excluded from the report.

Based on its holding that the report was inadmissible, the 6th Circuit vacated the district court’s resolution of the former general manager’s spoliation motion, reasoning that exclusion of the report was an appropriate sanction. 

Finally, regarding the company’s motion for summary judgment, the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court that the former general manager established a prima-facie case of age discrimination, as he was over 40 when terminated, well-qualified for the position, and replaced by a substantially younger employee. The 6th Circuit also agreed that the company stated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination based on the alleged culture at his restaurant.

However, the 6th Circuit diverged from the district court on the issue of pretext, finding that because the report was inadmissible, the company was left with little evidentiary support for its position that it fired the former general manager because of the culture at his restaurant. 

In addition, the former general manager provided sufficient evidence of pretext to rebut the company’s explanation, including evidence that the company did not rely on any objective metrics for evaluating culture (which would have shown that the culture at the restaurant was strong), the company did not follow its own progressive discipline policy before terminating his employment, and the company was cultivating a “youthful culture” that he did not fit into. 

The 6th Circuit therefore reversed and remanded the district court’s order on the company’s summary judgment motion, affirmed the district court’s order denying summary judgment for the former general manager, and returned the matter to the district court for further proceedings. 

Kean v. Brinker International Inc., 6th Cir., No. 24-5514 (June 17, 2025).

Molly Connor is an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia.