BARRY B. ADAMSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MULTI COMMUNITY DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39345

Summary

The employers terminated all three family members, asserting that the husband was fired because of his management style, that the wife was fired for poor performance and for violation of the anti-nepotism policy, and that the daughter was fired because her position was eliminated. The husband failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination. Even if the Tenth Circuit permitted an employee to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was not replaced by a younger person, the fact that the husband was fired after he mentioned retirement did not support a contention of age discrimination. The court concluded that plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence that the employers discriminated based upon gender through the use of their anti-nepotism policy. Plaintiffs did not show that the reason offered by the employers was pretextual for illegal discrimination. A single comment made to the daughter was not enough to connote sex discrimination, and she failed to produce ...