Reduction in Force On the standards for proving age discrimination in reduction in force cases, see, e.g., 445 F.3d 702, 706 n.4 (3d Cir. 2006): Tomasso v. Boeing Co., Ordinarily, to make out a prima facie case [of age discrimination] the plaintiff must show . . . that he was replaced by a sufficiently younger person to create an inference of age discrimination. 308 F.3d 335, 338 (3d Cir. 2002). However, where Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., an employee is terminated during a RIF, the [disputed question] becomes whether the employer retained employees who do not belong to the protected class. 801 F.2d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 1986) (noting that in reduction See also Dreyer v. ARCO Chemical Co., of force cases is often impracticable to require a plaintiff whose job has been eliminated to “it show and so the question becomes whether the plaintiff was laid off from a job for replacement” which he was qualified while substantially younger employees were treated more favorably), 507 U.S. 604, 617 (1993); overruled on other grounds by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, Anderson 297 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2002) (in a reduction in force case, the plaintiff must show v. CONRAIL, that a similarly situated substantially younger employee was retained).
Reduction in Force On the standards for proving age discrimination in reduction in force cases, see, e.g., Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702, 706 n.4 (3d Cir. 2006): Ordinarily, to make out a prima facie case [of age discrimination] the plaintiff must show . . . that he was replaced by a sufficiently younger person to create an inference of age discrimination. Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335, 338 (3d Cir. 2002). However, where an employee is terminated during a RIF, the [disputed question] becomes whether the employer retained employees who do not belong to the protected class. See also Dreyer v. ARCO Chemical Co., 801 F.2d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 1986) (noting that in reduction of force cases “it is often impracticable to require a plaintiff whose job has been eliminated to show replacement” and so the question becomes whether the plaintiff was laid off from a job for which he was qualified while substantially younger employees were treated more favorably), overruled on other grounds by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 617 (1993); Anderson v. CONRAIL, 297 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2002) (in a reduction in force case, the plaintiff must show that a similarly situated substantially younger employee was retained).
8_Chap_8_2017_October.docx