MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR

  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE

HR Morning

MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • More
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Staff Administration
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • Employee Services
    • Work Location
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans

Did CEO really call veteran staffer 'old and ugly?'

Dan Wisniewski
by Dan Wisniewski
September 11, 2013
3 minute read
  • SHARE ON

This company tried to win an age bias suit on a technicality after a CEO called a worker “old and ugly.” Here’s why it didn’t work. 
In September of 2010, Kanbar Property Management laid off seven employees, but property manager Toni Strength, 53, was spared — for one day.
The next day, Sukhi Ghuman, the CEO of the company, fired Strength, saying Strength’s position had also been eliminated.
Strength then went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which filed an age discrimination claim against the company on her behalf.
During its investigation, the EEOC obtained testimony from three Kanbar employees that pointed to some potentially damning evidence against the company and Ghuman:

  • One employee claimed that Ghuman said he fired Strength because Strength was “older and he (Ghuman) did not believe she had the ability to meet potential tenants and entertain existing tenants after work.”
  • The same employee noted that Ghuman said he wanted someone younger and prettier for the position.
  • Two other employees claimed that Ghuman told them that he fired Strength because she was “old and ugly” and that he added, “Who would want to lease from her?”

But was it age bias under the law?

Seems like a cut and dried age bias case, no? Kanbar didn’t think so.
A little background: A 2009 Supreme Court decision ruled that employees claiming age bias under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) have to prove that the fact they were over 40 was the sole cause of the adverse action taken against them. If age is only one of several factors, it’s a “mixed motive” case and an age bias claim can’t stand.
That’s the argument Kanbar made for its innocence, as relayed by P. Andrew Torrez, writing on the Suits by Suits blog:

Does repeatedly calling an employee “old and ugly” constitute a “mixed motive”? That’s exactly what the defendant, Kanbar Property Management, argued in its summary judgment motion, arguing that the statements reflected both ageism (which is prohibited by the ADEA) and “lookism,” which is not. Because the employee was terminated for both reasons, Kanbar argued, she couldn’t prove that the prohibited age discrimination was the “but-for” cause of her termination.

Not a bad try, said the court. But in the end, there were enough questions about Strength’s termination to send the case to a jury:

… a reasonable jury could find Ghuman’s statement that Strength was “old and ugly” to be two sides of the same coin — both being attributable to her age. Moreover, the statements directly demonstrate discriminatory motivation on the part of Ghuman and a direct nexus between that motivation and Ghuman’s decision to terminate Strength’s employment. A reasonable jury could certainly find that age was the but-for cause of Ghuman’s termination decision with respect to Strength. Accordingly, the EEOC has met its burden of coming forth with direct evidence of discrimination sufficient to preclude summary judgment as to its ADEA claim.

Doesn’t look like the case will make it that far anyway — Kanbar just settled the case with Strength for $140,000. The company will also “update its anti-discrimination policies to recognize the importance of older employees in the workforce and furnish companywide ADEA training for all of its management personnel with hiring and firing authority, as part of the settlement.”
The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kanbar Property Management, LLC.

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES

Keep Up To Date with the Latest HR News

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

Sign up for a free HRMorning membership and get our newsletter!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • HR Technology
  • Performance Management
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation & Payroll
  • Policy & Culture
  • Staff Administration
  • Wellness & Safety
  • Staff Departure
  • Employee Services
  • Work Location
  • HR Career & Self-Care

HRMorning, part of the SuccessFuel Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day’s headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright © 2021 SuccessFuel

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

preloader