Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—8th Cir.: Demoted fire department manager, now retired, failed to establish age discrimination, (Oct 8, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“Though the claims raise distinct issues, his counsel conceded at oral argument that one issue, constructive discharge, holds the ‘keys to the kingdom.’”

A former fire department manager who retired after he was demoted, following complaints from his subordinates, failed to establish age discrimination, a procedural due process violation, or civil conspiracy, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. He could not prove that he experienced objectively intolerable working conditions, as required to show that he was constructively discharged and thus suffered an adverse employment action. Despite his “rapid” three-month reclassification, loss of responsibilities, and reduced pay, the city did not leave him with no “reasonable alternative” other than to quit. The record reflected that he also never either mentioned his concerns of age-based animus to management or gave the defendants an opportunity to correct the discrimination he perceived. Because he voluntarily retired, he could not show that he was “deprived” of a protected property interest, and his civil conspiracy claim failed in the absence of any underlying constitutional violation (Pronk v. City of Rochester, No. 25-1327 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2026)).

Strategic plan analysis. Early in 2018, the fire chief of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, undertook a “full-blown strategic plan analysis” of the fire department to streamline operations. The plaintiff, as supervisor of the department’s administrative assistants, recommended that the department hire an additional administrative assistant, and after the city council rejected this recommendation, the chief directed the deputy fire chief to conduct a “deep analysis” of the department’s needs.

Performance reviews. The deputy conducted “bifurcated” performance reviews of the manager in 2020 and 2021. In the first review, though giving him a “successful” rating, the deputy noted staff criticisms that had been reported, including that he needed to become more proactive in his position and more involved with his team to understand their daily tasks and workload.

The deputy then conducted an “alternate” performance review that addressed the criticisms more directly. As the manager’s friend, the deputy did not feel comfortable putting the more severe criticisms in his actual performance review because that would impact his ability to receive a merit pay increase. Instead, the deputy prepared an alternative review that he did not submit to HR for approval but did relay to the fire chief. This review stated, “[[The manager]] is well like[d] by his peers, but is not respected as a member of the Fire Department Team who contributes at a level appropriate for his position.... [[He]] struggles with the basic understanding of standard administrative task [sic].... People feel [[he]] makes answers up or bluffs his way through discussions even when he does not have a clear understanding. People go around [[him]] as a result of his lack of organizational knowledge....”

Performance discussion. In May 2021, the chief, the deputy, an HR representative, and the battalion chief met to discuss his situation. The deputy told the fire chief that the manager was not performing the job he was being paid for. The group decided that reclassifying the manager’s position to remove some of his current duties, rather than putting him on a performance improvement plan, would put him “into something he could be successful at.” After the meeting, the deputy removed the manager’s supervisory duties over the administrative assistants he had supervised and asked him to identify areas of improvement from his 2020 reviews. The former manager acknowledged his efforts to improve but challenged the co-worker criticisms.

“[U]nsatisfactory” review. His 2021 performance review by the fire chief, the deputy, and the HR rep occurred on July 20, six months after his 2020 reviews. The group discussed his performance, including his response to the 2020 reviews, and gave him an “unsatisfactory” rating.

Demotion based on age? He felt the criticisms were based on age but did not communicate that during or after the meeting. The group informed him of the decision to reclassify his position, detailing the potential impact on his pay, change in job-related duties, and removal from the executive management team. They asked him for his help and gave him time to provide feedback. The manager asked the group to go out to lunch after the meeting.

“[W]alked out the door.” He “struck a different tone after the meeting,” according to the court, expressing concern in a written response that he was being “walked out the door,” and suggesting that only minimal changes were necessary for any reclassification of his position. The deputy chief replied, “I am sorry to be blunt, but you have not been successful previously and I don’t think you would be successful moving forward with the amount of scrutiny that we are placing on all positions to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of our current resources....”

The manager then submitted more substantive changes to his role, and the deputy rejected them as untimely. After the reclassification, the plaintiff was transitioned to an “Administrative Services Specialist” position. In this new role, his pay would decrease almost $12,000, an amount that the HR rep and the HR director knew could be significant for him.

CBA allowed reclassification. The applicable CBA, the court noted, “allowed reclassification as long as the request for reclassification ‘demonstrate[s] that position duties and responsibilities have changed by at least 40 percent’ and provided that any information ‘regarding changes to positions... would be provided to the [Union] President prior to being presented to the City Council for review and approval.’” A union representative inquired about the former manager’s reclassification and the need for timely feedback for the union’s members. The fire chief, in turn, admitted he did not know whether the former manager’s responsibilities changed 40 percent or more. No one at fire department sent the union president or the city council the information requested, as required by the CBA.

Memo. To address the demoted manager’s concerns, the HR rep and deputy chief met with him on August 9, presenting a memo detailing the revised changes and expectations. He claimed the memo detailed additional duties not found in his original job description and not part of his most recent workflow.

Retirement. Instead of accepting his new position, he notified the HR director of his intent to retire on August 31. This “surprised” the deputy and fire chief, who thought they had “found a way for him to be successful and continue to serve the fire department.” After he retired, the fire department changed his position to “Administrative Service Coordinator,” adding additional responsibilities. A 50-year-old man replaced him. The former manager was 60 years old when he retired.

Lawsuit. He sued the city, the fire chief, the deputy chief, and the HR director, alleging they unlawfully discriminated against him based on his age in violation of the ADEA, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional right to procedural due process through Section 1983 and the Due Process Clause, and additionally conspired to deprive him of the same constitutional rights.

Decision below and appeal. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, and he appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

Constructive discharge. Affirming, the federal appeals court observed, “Though the claims raise distinct issues, his counsel conceded at oral argument that one issue, constructive discharge, holds the ‘keys to the kingdom.’” Agreeing, the Eighth Circuit found that he could not establish constructive discharge, the adverse employment action on which his ADEA, MHRA, and equal protection claims hinged. Despite his “rapid” three-month reclassification, loss of responsibilities, and reduced pay, the former manager could not demonstrate the requisite objectively intolerable working conditions. The city, the court concluded from the facts, simply did not leave him no “reasonable alternative” other than to quit. Further, the record reflected that he never either mentioned his concerns of age-based animus to management or gave the defendants an opportunity to correct the discrimination he perceived.

Procedural due process. The former manager’s procedural due process claim failed in the absence of a deprivation of a right. Because he voluntarily retired and gave up his employment, in which he alleged he had a protected property interest, he was not “deprived” of this alleged property interest.

Civil conspiracy. Finally, the former manager’s civil conspiracy claim failed in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. Because he had no claim under Section 1983 for either a violation of his right to equal protection or procedural due process, the district court properly dismissed this claim as well.

The case is No. 25-1327.

Judge: Loken, J.

Attorneys: Stephen Charles Fiebiger (Law Offices of Stephen C. Fiebiger) for Curtis Pronk. Susan Marie Tindal (Iverson & Reuvers) for City of Rochester, Erik Kerska, and Vance Swisher.

Companies: City of Rochester

MainStory: TopStory AgeDiscrimination Discrimination IndividualRights TortClaims PublicEmployees Labor UnionsMembers ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews GCNNews