- within Compliance topic(s)
Originally appeared in Labor and Employment Newsletter - February 2002
A car dealer’s failure to train its hiring manager in age discrimination laws is an "extraordinary mistake," according to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, justifying a jury’s award of liquidated damages to a disappointed job applicant.
Age Apparent
In Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, an applicant for a sales position alleged that the car dealership failed to hire him because of his race and his age. The plaintiff was never interviewed, but the fact that he was well over 40 was apparent on his application from his responses to questions about his veteran status. Seven younger applicants were hired by the dealership after the plaintiff submitted his application.
The hiring manager asserted that he had never received the application. The manager admitted, however, that he often noted the ages of employment applicants on their applications and that he did not know that discrimination on the basis of age was illegal. Another manager testified that he looked for applicants who were "bright, young and aggressive." The jury found for the plaintiff on his age claim and determined that the dealership was in willful violation of the ADEA.
"Reckless Indifference"
The dealership challenged the award of liquidated damages, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of willfulness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award, holding that "[l]eaving managers with hiring authority in ignorance of the basic features of the discrimination laws is an ‘extraordinary mistake’ for a company to make, and a jury can find that such an extraordinary mistake amounts to reckless indifference."
The Court rejected the dealership’s claim that its application form, which states that the ADEA prohibits discrimination against applicants 40 or over, demonstrated the dealership’s good faith effort to comply with the law. The Court noted that the anti-discrimination statement was likely more harmful than helpful to the dealership because the jury could easily have concluded that printing the statement on the application but failing to make any effort to train hiring managers about the law demonstrated that the dealership knew what the law required but was indifferent to whether its managers followed that law.
Copyright © 2007, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP. and/or Mayer Brown International LLP. This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
Mayer Brown is a combination of two limited liability partnerships: one named Mayer Brown LLP, established in Illinois, USA; and one named Mayer Brown International LLP, incorporated in England.