PITTSBURGH - Be careful what you say at work, is a major lesson learned in a recent ruling by a federal judge in an age discrimination lawsuit.
The president of a Western Pennsylvania custom cabinets company opened it to liability by declaring his young employees are the business' future, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan wrote in an Aug. 30 opinion.
Ranjan presides over William Pepke's lawsuit against Manor House Kitchen and rejected the defendant's motion for summary judgment, turning largely to a statement made by Jeffrey Backus while terminating Pepke's employment in August 2023.
Backus allegedly said he was going to keep the "younger guys working" when he laid off Pepke, who was 60 years old at the time. Backus allegedly added "the younger employees live pay-to-pay and they are the future of the company."
A reasonable jury could conclude from this record that these remarks by the decisionmaker at a termination meeting are direct evidence of age discrimination and that age discrimination was the but-for cause of Mr. Pepke's layoff," Ranjan wrote.
Pepke was the lead installer in Manor House's granite installation department but was laid off on Aug. 7, 2023. He sued Manor House under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Manor House defended its actions by pointing to a decrease in revenue from granite installations, a decrease in overall sales, lighter work for granite installation and Pepke's stats as the highest-paid employee in the granite installation department.
It laid off eight other employees in 2023 who ranged in age from 32 to 62. It even brought back one of those laid off who is older than Pepke in 2024.
Pepke says he was asked when he was retiring a month before he was laid off during an annual performance review.
Earlier in 2023, Pepke turned 60 years old. Backus was allegedly "very boisterous" in announcing the birthday in the Manor House shop, adding, "Oh, Bill Pepke is 60 years old. He's got seven more years until Social Security. He's going to be here seven more years."
Manor House said there were several economic factors for Pepke's termination and that age-related statements when combined with statements about cost are not actionable.
"Ultimately, a jury may agree with Manor House's version of events," Ranjan wrote. "After all, the Third Circuit has described a plaintiff's burden to present direct evidence as a 'high hurdle.'
"But the Court finds that, at least at this stage, Mr. Pepke has cleared it."