Legal Question in Legal Ethics in Oregon

Now I'm not Qualified

I'm 61 years young, and for the past 4 years I have been the Logisics Manager for a food co. In May of 2006 I was given a 90 day Probation letter, by my new boss. This letter had a 45 day evaluation period, and a final 90 day evaluation period. No evaluation at 45 days and no evaluation after the 90 days. I contacted HR, this was a big mistake, it took 2 months to have an addendium written, to the affect that the probation letter is now null & void, but remains in my file. On Dec. 27, 2006 I was stripped of my Managers position, and reduced in salary, by $12,000. My direct report is not following the chain of command, for reporting, she continues to go to my boss, and has started a communication issue, that relects poor and unprofessional communication from me. I truly believe that I'm caught in a no win situation. My boss has never outlined a job description, most importantly never communicated any negative work issues with me, until I received my 90 day probation letter.

I have no support at work, HR is truly biased, in favor of my boss's written words. My direct report has formed an alliance with our CFO and my boss, to discredit me at every turn of the road.

Do I have any recourse.

Now I'm not Qualified

Portland, OR


Asked on 12/31/06, 5:24 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Craig Crispin Crispin Employment Lawyers

Re: Now I'm not Qualified

Age discrimination is a violation of law, of course, but merely being within the protected age group (age 40 and above under federal law and from age 18 under state law) does not protect an employee from adverse treatment from an employer. To constitute illegal discrimination, the adverse treatment must be BECAUSE of age. This connection between the protected classification and the adverse employment action is the critical factor.

Once we demonstrate some connection, the employer is obligated to articulate a legitimate business reason for its employment decision. Once it does so, the employee must show that the purported legitimate business reason is not the real reason, but is but a pretext for illegal discrimination. That requires proof that the employer treated those outside the protected classification more favorably, or made comments suggesting a bias, or generally that the purported reason makes no sense absent illegal discrimination.

The fact the employer failed to follow up on the probation letter is suspicious, as is the lack of any prior notice that your work was allegedly unsatisfactory. Neither fact by itself, though, would be enough to prove illegal discrimination. More factual development of your situation is required to make an informed assessment, particularly what the employer is claiming to be a legitimate business reason for its actions. Although you might disagree with the contention that your work was unsatisfactory (if that�s what they claim) or the conduct they claim is defective justifies a demotion, if the employer wants to act for trivial reasons it can do so. Only when the trivial reason is a pretext for discrimination (i.e., a cover up for an illegal motive) does it become illegal.

Two other notes: First, HR personnel are there to protect the employer, period. They do not exist to protect the employee. Do not expect them to be on your side. Second, regarding the direct report who has apparently turned against you, it is vital that you communicate to your employer that this is occurring and that it is due to your age (assuming it is or might be). Otherwise, an employer would be permitted to use this report�s negative treatment of you or of your supervision as a legitimate business reason to discriminate against you.

You should consult a lawyer or contact the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries, Civil Rights Division, for assistance. You need to take action promptly. Do not delay. Your rights may be lost if you wait too long to act.

The above is a general discussion of legal issues only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Obtain the advice of an experienced employment attorney who has the benefit of all the facts and circumstances.

Read more
Answered on 1/01/07, 8:08 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility questions and answers in Oregon