Employees, at times, seem to be better lawyers than the employment lawyers – or so they think. How many times has HR or a supervisor been threatened by an employee for violating their rights or discriminating against them when in reality, they are simply trying to get an employee to perform and follow direction. Employers have broad discretion for terminating employees according to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan.
In the case of Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., No. 20-3511 (6th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1/12/2021), Pelcha was terminated because she failed to follow the required process for time off. Pelcha claimed that she was terminated on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
Pelcha started working at MW Bancorp in 2005. In 2016 she was given a new supervisor who required written requests for any time out of the office instead of sending an email as had been done in the past. These written requests had to be submitted by the middle of the month prior to the month of the requested time off.
In early July 2016, Pelcha planned to take a few hours off from work but did not fill out the written request form. Instead, she orally obtained permission from Sonderman, her supervisor. Pelcha “bridled at the notion of having to fill out a written request,” reviewed the employee handbook, and told Sonderman that she was “not filling [the request out] because [she didn’t] have to.” Despite her complaints, Pelcha completed the form and placed it in Sonderman’s office on July 7, 2016, the day before her time off.
When the president of the bank came to the location on a regularly scheduled day, Pelcha’s supervisor told him about Pelcha’s failure to turn in the form as well as other workplace issues, such as her negative attitude and failure to timely complete tasks. The president wasn’t happy and told the supervisor that he had zero tolerance for insubordination and that he intended to fire Pelcha. Shortly thereafter, Pelcha was terminated on July 16, 2016 by the president and was told it was because of her insubordination.
As expected Pelcha sued and claimed age discrimination – ignoring her performance issues. Her claim was dismissed during summary judgement in 2020. She appealed.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgement. Under the ADEA, the court stated that Pelcha has to show that age was the reason why she was terminated, not that age was one of multiple reasons or the “but for” standard.
As part of her proof, Pelcha had to show whether she was terminated because of age either through direct proof or circumstantial proof. Direct proof, as the court states, is the smoking gun. Pelcha claimed that the president made comments about another employee in her 80’s, saying that she had a “limited shelf life” and had reached her “expiration date.” He stated that he intended to reduce that employee’s hours until she quit and that he would like to “hire younger tellers.” Pelcha claimed that all these statements prove animus against older employees. Pelcha was 47 at the time.
The court did not buy the argument. First, the president only stated these comments a few times and more than six months before firing Pelcha. And the hiring of younger tellers, unless proven contextually, could mean hiring younger tellers without firing older employees. Finally, the court stated that it has previously suggested that time spans of six or seven months can be temporally distant, and therefore not related to the action in hand.
Pelcha was also unable to sustain circumstantial proof of discrimination as well. The court stated that a nondiscriminatory reason for her termination was provided by the company, her refusal to follow procedures required by her manager. And although the handbook had a progressive disciplinary process, the court also stated that “an employer’s failure to follow self-imposed regulations or procedures is generally insufficient to support a finding of pretext.”
HR should not let an employee’s supposed legal prowess stop or delay the termination process. The 6th Circuit states that “an employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a discriminatory reason.”