Last week, a local federal jury awarded more than $6.2 million to 2 scientists who alleged they had been terminated from their jobs at a Chester County manufacturing firm as a result of the company targeting older employees for layoffs. 

In Marcus v. PQ Corp., the jury determined that age was the “but for” cause of the employer’s decision to terminate the scientists, not withstanding the employer’s argument that the layoffs were unrelated to the scientists’ age but due to funding for their positions being eliminated.  The scientists, however, successfully demonstrated that the employer had manipulated its budget figures to justify layoffs of only those employees who were 55 years old or older and that younger workers should have been considered for layoffs as well. 

The 2 scientists were awarded $1,337,000 and $565,000, respectively, in back pay and front pay.  However, the jury determined that the employer’s conduct was “willful”, a finding that led to the automatic doubling of each scientist’s back pay award.  Additionally, the jury awarded $2 million and $1.5 million, respectively, for the emotional suffering endured by the scientists as a result of the unlawful terminations.  Furthermore, the employer is facing potential greater financial exposure in the form of the scientists’ attorneys’ fees, which are estimated to be in the six figures, as well as prejudgment interest and an enhancement of the awards to compensate the scientists for the negative tax consequences of receiving the money in a lump sum. 

The Marcus case demonstrates, that even with the heightened standard that employees must meet in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., employers who violate age discrimination laws can still face severe monetary consequences.             

This newsletter is a publication of Nochumson P.C. and is intended for general information only. It should not be construed as legal advice with respect to any particular situation, and readers should not act upon information contained in this newsletter without first consulting an attorney. Copyright © 2009.