February 4, 2008
David Hoskins

A required element in almost all age discrimination cases is that a discharged plaintiff must present evidence that -- after his discharge -- he was replaced by a significantly younger person.  What, however, does it mean to be "replaced"?  What if the employer does not hire an additional employee, but simply reassigns the discharged employee's duties to another employee in addition to his existing duties?  In Harmon v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., the Western District of Kentucky ruled that such a reassignment does not constitute "replacement" and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.  The decision can be read by clicking here.

Harmon v. Earthgrains