Employers are often tempted to make inquiries to older employees about their retirement plans. At times these inquiries are motivated by a desire to be prepared for future staffing needs in the event of a retirement, but at others they are driven by a desire to rid the workplace of \u201cdead wood\u201d to make room for \u201cfresh talent.\u201d However, federal and state law prohibit age discrimination in employment and employers must tread carefully when making any inquiries about an employee\u2019s retirement plans. Although an employer is permitted to make proper inquires under certain circumstances, one employer found out how easily these inquires can bu used as evidence of age discrimination.<\/p>\n
Recently, the District Court of New Jersey denied Defendants, Wildwood Beach Patrol and two individual employees, summary judgment on Plaintiff Louis Cirelli\u2019s age discrimination claim, on the basis that Plaintiff offered sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus. Along with a reduction in Plaintiff\u2019s duties and responsibilities, the court noted that Defendants\u2019 questions to Plaintiff regarding how long Plaintiff, who was 66 years old, intended to work for the Wildwood Beach Patrol was evidence of unlawful discriminatory treatment constituting a discriminatory animus sufficient to deny Defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n
Facts:<\/strong> Plaintiff Louis Cirelli, age 66, was employed by the Wildwood Beach Patrol for 48 years. According to Cirelli, in 2011 the Commissioner of Public Safety and Cirelli\u2019s immediate supervisor asked him when he was going to retire, told him to concentrate on his administrative duties, and delegated his operational duties to the Captain of the Beach Patrol who was 20 years younger. At a 2012 meeting the Captain asked Cirelli \u201cjust how long are you going to be hanging around here?\u201d According to Cirelli, at that same meeting the Captain presented him with a list of \u201cBest Practices\u201d for the Beach Patrol. Finally, Cirelli maintained that his name was not included on the Beach Patrol website and on training information and forms provided to new lifeguards. Cirelli had net been subject to any prior reprimands or discipline.<\/p>\n