News & Information

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW — 07/30/09

Employer's email allows applicant's age bias claim to proceed

The contents of an employer's internal email, mistakenly sent to a 46-year-old job applicant, allowed the applicant's age bias claims under the ADEA and Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) to proceed, held a federal district court in Idaho. (Wold v El Centro Fin, Inc, DIdaho, 92 EPD ¶43,597)

In response to a job advertisement for an operations manager position, the applicant emailed a cover letter and resume to the employer. Nine days later, the company's chief executive officer (CEO) mistakenly sent the applicant an email (intended for another individual), which stated: "Damn. I'm here late trying to get through emails - I just saw this one I missed somehow and it is a week old. Check it out - I don't know what I think. He must be old - and just looking for something to do." When the applicant failed to receive any further communications from the company about the position, he concluded that the company rejected him for the job because of age. The company claimed that no such rejection occurred because his job application was never forward to the individual in charge of the hiring process. The company claimed that its CEO never forwarded the application to the hiring coordinator, but mistakenly returned the application to the applicant, omitting him from the hiring process. Ultimately, the applicant filed suit under the ADEA and Idaho Human Rights Act.

Denying summary judgment to the company, the district court held that triable issues existed as to whether the applicant was rejected for a position because of his age. The court first rejected the employer's argument that it had never considered and rejected the applicant's job application. As part of its investigative process, the Idaho Department of Human Rights (IHRC) requested that the employer provide a justification for not hiring the applicant. The IHRC's summary of investigation indicated that the employer rejected the applicant because: (1) his application materials showed "aggressiveness;" (2) he was unqualified for the position; (3) there was another applicant with exceptional credentials; and (4) the applicant's past security and military work led the employer to believe the applicant's interest in the position was odd. In addition, the court determined that the CEO's email was sufficient evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive, as it was more than a mere colloquialism since it referred directly to the applicant. All the employer's "inconsistent explanations could lead a rational trier of fact to find that [it's] explanation was unworthy of credence," wrote the court. Thus, genuine issues of fact existed as to whether the employer received, reviewed and rejected the applicant's application based on his age.

For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.

Visit our News Library to read more news stories.