Verdicts

AGE DISCRIMINATION
[WOMAN ALLEGED AGE-BASED DENIAL OF PROMOTION]

Judy H. Kim, Snitow Kanfer Holtzer & Millus, LLP, New York, NY

Facts and Allegations:   Plaintiff Eileen Stone was an intake-unit supervisor in Nassau County's Department of Social Services who alleged that she was unlawfully denied a promotion to emer¬gency night-services coordinator or emergency night-housing coordinator.  Stone was 71 years old in 1999, when the positions were filled – in both cases, by younger female employees both over the age of 40.  She contended that her promotion was denied because of her age.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that there was reasonable cause on which to base a finding that the County had violated the law.  Stone subsequently re¬covered full back wages in a grievance arbitration based on grounds of seniority.

Stone sued Nassau County alleging that the County had violated the Age Discrimi¬nation in Employment Act, New York State Human Rights Law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  She noted that (i) she had not received a negative evaluation during her tenure as acting emergency night-services coordinator, a position she held from August 1994 to September 1995; (ii) her duties as intake-unit supervisor mirrored those of emergency night-services coordinator; and (iii) she con¬tended that she was better qualified than either of the two candidates who were ultimately selected for the positions.  Finally, she claimed that the EEOC determination and the grievance-arbitration result supported her claim of discrimination.

The County argued that its decision not to promote Stone was free from discriminatory animus, and that the younger women's promotions were based solely on their qualifications.  It also argued that rulings of the EEOC and a union arbitrator were not relevant in this case.

AGE DISCRIMINATION
 [MAN ALLEGED AGE-BASED DENIAL OF PROMOTION]

Facts and Allegations:   Plaintiff was a 55-year-old maintenance mechanic at the Nassau County Correctional Center.  In October 1994, he was denied a promotion to the position of maintenance supervisor, and a 42-year-old applicant was given the position.  Plaintiff claimed that his age and disability – which consisted of a severe facial disfiguration and damage to his hands caused by burns that he sustained when he was 17 years old – were factors in defendants' employment decision.  He brought this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Dis¬crimination in Employment Act (ADEA), New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants denied that its employment decision had anything to do with plaintiff's age or alleged disability.  Defendants also contended that the alleged disability was not compensable under the ADA because based on plaintiff's testimony, it did not substantially limit his ability to work, a major life activity.  Defendants also contended that there was no evidence connecting plaintiff's age to the decision to promote another employee.  On cross-examination, plaintiff could not establish any remarks made in the workplace pertaining to his age or alleged disability.

Note:  At the close of plaintiff's case, District Judge Platt granted defendants' Rule 50 motion and dismissed the § 1983 and Human Rights Law claims as time-barred.  He also dis¬missed the ADA claim, as the evidence did not support a finding that plaintiff's facial disfigure¬ment or hand injuries limited his ability to perform his functions and did not qualify as a sub¬stantial limitation on a major life activity.