Week of January 27th, 2003
FOURTH CIRCUIT FINDS THAT SEX AND AGE COMMENTS BY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR CONSTITUTED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION EVEN THOUGH SUPERVISOR DID NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION TO DISCHARGE THE PLAINTIFF.
In Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc., (4th Cir. January 7, 2003), the plaintiff brought suit alleging sex and age discrimination and retaliation after she was discharged. The plaintiff was a long time employee who worked as a sheet metal mechanic assigned to projects at military bases. In January 1998, plaintiff was assigned to work on a project at Fort Drum, New York. Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor allegedly made several statements to her that showed sex and age animus. For example, on several occasions her supervisor referred to her as a "useless old lady." One time he allegedly said that plaintiff was a useless old lady and that she needed to go home and retire. Another time her supervisor allegedly said that Hill was "useless and they need[ed] to retire her." He also allegedly called her a "damn woman," and "a troubled old lady." After her supervisor wrote plaintiff up for misplacing some tools, she complained about her supervisor’s comments to her supervisor’s boss (Dixon). Dixon did not fully investigate the complaint even though he was required to do so by Company policy. After plaintiff complained, plaintiff’s supervisor wrote her up several times for “performance problems.” Plaintiff was eventually discharged. The decisionmakers who made the ultimate decision to fire plaintiff relied primarily on the information furnished by her supervisor and did not conduct an independent investigation.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and found that plaintiff had adduced direct evidence of sex and age discrimination based on the comments of her supervisor. The Court reasoned that the statements of her supervisor should be considered as direct evidence (even though the supervisor was not a final decisionmaker), since his evaluations of the plaintiff’s performance influenced the final decision makers to terminate her employment, and since the final decisionmakers did not conduct an independent investigation into the matter. The Court also concluded that an issue of fact existed on the question of retaliation, since the plaintiff’s supervisor wrote her up on several occasions immediately after she complained about his alleged sex and age comments.