$1.8M Age Discrimination Verdict: What HR Should Know

A seven-figure age discrimination verdict should turn the head of any HR pro. In a recent case from Ohio, a state appeals court upheld a jury’s decision to go big in favor of a long-term CPA who was let go at age 65.

The case highlights what HR should consider when deciding to terminate the employment of an older worker.

The Making of an Age Discrimination Lawsuit

In 2016, Cheryl Shephard began working for CrossCountry Mortgage as a senior accountant. During her time there, she always received positive performance evaluations. She was never placed on a performance improvement plan, and her salary rose while she worked there.

Shephard was a good employee, but she wasn’t perfect. For example, in December 2021, she copied the wrong number into a spreadsheet. She realized the error the next day and told her supervisor about it. He told her not to worry about it, and she was not disciplined for the mistake.

Younger Employee Is Hired

At the start of April 2022, CrossCountry hired a 29-year-old as an accounting manager. Shephard was assigned to train the new employee, and by mid-May of the same year, all of her work had been reassigned to the new hire.

Later in the same month, CrossCountry assigned Shephard to process expense reports. She was way overqualified for that task.

In June of that year, when Shephard was 65 years old, CrossCountry’s head of HR called her to say that Shephard was being let go because there was “a new business model” and her job was being eliminated.

Employee Files Age Discrimination Suit

Shephard sued the employer, alleging unlawful age discrimination. At trial, a CrossCountry corporate representative said Shephard was let go as part of a reduction in force because business was down.

But evidence showed that between February and June of 2022, the company hired five new employees – all younger than Shephard – adding $485,000 in annual salaries to its accounting department.

Shifting Stories Strengthen Age Discrimination Claim

After the lawsuit was filed, the company claimed Shephard was let go due to poor performance – despite initially stating her position was eliminated as part of a business model shift.

Adding to the inconsistency, testimony revealed that company leaders said CrossCountry “should get younger and hungrier.” That kind of language gave the jury a direct line to bias.

Taken together, the conflicting explanations and age-related remarks convinced the jury that age discrimination was a determining factor in CrossCountry’s decision to let Shepard go.

Verdict Upheld: Age Discrimination Costs Stack Up

The jury awarded compensatory damages of about $545,000, and it delivered an even bigger blow when it tacked on another $1.25 million in punitives. It also said that CrossCountry should pay Shephard’s attorneys’ fees.

On appeal, the court found there was enough evidence to support the jury’s decision that the employer illegally discriminated against Shephard based on her age. Among other things, it found that the alleged “younger and hungrier” comments were direct evidence of unlawful bias.

There was also enough evidence to support the award of punitive damages, the court said.

What Should HR Pros Take Away From This?

Multimillion-dollar awards in discrimination cases are rare. But they do happen – and are becoming more common. In fact, in a new survey from global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, eight in 10 respondents said they were increasingly concerned with the growing prominence of so-called “nuclear verdicts” – unexpectedly high jury verdicts exceeding $10 million.

No employer wants to be in the position of staring at a huge verdict against it in an age discrimination lawsuit. This case is a valuable cautionary tale for all employers.

For HR professionals handling terminations involving older workers, these strategies provide a roadmap to reduce exposure and ensure compliance.

• Timely documentation is your best defense. Backdating justifications or building a paper trail post-termination won’t hold up under scrutiny. Performance documentation must be timely, specific, and consistent.
• Pick a reason and stick to it. Shifting rationales signal liability. Whether it’s a RIF, performance, or restructuring – your justification must be clear, consistent and supported by documentation.
• Offhand comments aren’t harmless. Remarks about getting “younger and hungrier” may sound like motivational fluff – but they can sink your defense. Bias doesn’t need a microphone to leave evidence. Train managers to prevent these mistakes.
• Eliminating a job isn’t the same as eliminating an employee. A valid RIF requires structure, not convenience. Reassigning work to younger employees undermines any claim that the position no longer exists — and risks looking like age discrimination.
• Longevity demands extra diligence. When letting go of long-tenured employees with clean employment records, the decision must be airtight. Juries don’t like sudden drops from “meets expectations” to “pack your things.”

Shephard v. CrossCountry Mortgage, Inc., No. 114149 (Ohio Ct. App. 5/29/25).