Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D. Idaho: Seventy-year-old bookkeeper fends off summary judgment amid disputed discharge reasons, (Sep 22, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The company promoted her and increased her salary a few months before her termination.

A 70-year-old bookkeeper, who was replaced by a 42-year-old employee, can proceed to trial with her ADEA claim against Teton West of Idaho, a federal district court in Idaho ruled. Denying the company’s motion for summary judgment, the court found a jury could find the proffered reasons for her discharge, including alleged performance issues and a purported RIF, were pretextual given the lack of formal performance reviews, positive assessments of her work, and the absence of any RIF reference in records of her termination (Hannan v. Teton West of Idaho, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-00050-AKB (D. Idaho Sept. 17, 2026)).

The 70-year-old employee had worked as a bookkeeper since 2004 for businesses related to Teton West of Idaho (TWI) and began working directly for TWI in 2020. After TWI terminated its office manager in June 2022, following an investigation into the apparent theft of company funds, the bookkeeper maintained that she had previously identified and reported suspicious personal expenses that the office manager had charged to company accounts. TWI, however, later concluded the bookkeeper might have facilitated or concealed the office manager’s misuse of company funds. The bookkeeper disputed that assertion, denied any involvement, and contended she was the one who reported the questionable transactions to management.

Job performance. The parties also disputed the bookkeeper’s job performance. TWI asserted that bank-reconciliation delays, accounting discrepancies, duplicate entries, and other bookkeeping issues demonstrated poor performance. She disputed those allegations, and outside accountants stated they found her bookkeeping work satisfactory and proficient.

Promotion. A few days after the office manager’s termination, TWI promoted the bookkeeper and increased her salary. Around the same time, discussions occurred regarding providing her with a company credit card. The parties disputed whether the managing partner learned of her age when obtaining information for the card. She claimed that after he learned she was 70 years old, his attitude toward her changed. The managing partner denied learning her age at that time.

Younger employee. In August 2022, TWI hired a 42-year-old. The bookkeeper alleged the company began transferring her bookkeeping duties to the new employee and instructed her to train the younger employee. TWI contended the employee was hired to replace the office manager, not the bookkeeper, although the managing partner later acknowledged the new employee ultimately performed all the tasks the bookkeeper had performed.

Termination. In October 2022, TWI’s owners discussed the bookkeeper’s employment and decided to terminate her. Meeting notes reflected statements, including, “We don’t need her,” “It’s not her fault,” and “She just doesn’t have any accounting experience.” The managing partner testified that he initiated the discussion and was the only person who had input into the termination decision.

TWI informed the bookkeeper that her employment was being terminated in November 2022. No one expressly told her she was being terminated due to her age. The parties disagreed about the reason given during the termination call. TWI initially responded that her termination occurred as part of a company-wide reduction in force and cited performance concerns.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the bookkeeper filed a complaint alleging TWI discharged her in violation of the ADEA. The bookkeeper also filed a motion in limine to exclude certain expert testimony from the managing partner, and TWI filed a motion for summary judgment.

Motion in limine. As a threshold matter, the court denied the bookkeeper’s motion to exclude the managing partner categorically as an expert witness. The court concluded that at least some of his anticipated testimony was not excludable on the categorical ground asserted, while other proposed opinions may raise questions under FRE 701 and 702 concerning the scope of his expertise, the basis for his opinions, or the extent to which those opinions depend on specialized knowledge regarding QuickBooks. The parties had not identified and analyzed the challenged opinions with sufficient specificity to allow the court to conduct an opinion-by-opinion Rule 702 analysis, the court said.

Satisfactory performance. Turning to the bookkeeper’s prima facie case, the court first noted that her age and termination were not in dispute. Regarding her job performance, the court found the competing evidence was sufficient to show satisfactory performance at this stage. TWI maintained that its continuing financial investigation revealed her deficiencies after her June 2022 promotion. She noted that TWI promoted her and increased her salary only months before terminating her, had conducted no formal performance reviews, and the accountants who reviewed TWI’s books described her work positively and did not identify the errors TWI now emphasized in the work they reviewed.

Replacement. The court next found the bookkeeper satisfied the fourth element of her prima facie case with evidence that gave rise to an inference of age discrimination. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether the 42-year-old that TWI hired after it terminated the embezzling office manager was the bookkeeper’s literal replacement. Nevertheless, the bookkeeper stated that TWI had her train the new employee on bookkeeping work, and the managing partner testified the new employee now performed all work the bookkeeper had performed previously. The circumstances, the court said, were sufficient to satisfy the bookkeeper’s minimal burden that the 42-year-old replaced her.

Reason for termination. Turning to whether TWI had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the bookkeeper’s termination, the court found TWI had identified three reasons. TWI indicated the bookkeeper lacked adequate accounting experience; her work was completed late, was inaccurate, and was inefficient; and TWI believed she had participated in or covered up the office manager’s fraudulent conduct. The court agreed with TWI’s arguments that the bookkeeper’s promotion did not foreclose these explanations because its continuing investigation revealed her deficiencies, and multiple legitimate reasons for a decision were not inherently inconsistent.

Pretext. Finally, denying TWI’s motion for summary judgment, the court found a reasonable jury could find TWI’s proffered reasons for the bookkeeper’s termination unworthy of credence and pretext for age discrimination. The court found that the contemporaneous record of the termination decision permitted competing reasonable inferences about why TWI terminated her. The October 2022 meeting minutes stated, “We don’t need her. It’s not her fault”; “She just doesn’t have any accounting experience; and “[Her manager] is going to speak to [the employee] and let her go.” TWI reasonably read that language as confirming it believed the bookkeeper lacked the accounting skill necessary for the job and refuting the implication that she was terminated due to her age.

TWI’s reading, however, was not the only reasonable reading, the court said. “We don’t need her” could be understood as an admission that the 42-year-old had taken over her duties. “It’s not her fault” undercuts the suggestion she had performance problems. In addition, the reference to her accounting experience could reasonably be understood as comparing her to another employee who did have accounting experience, i.e., her replacement.

Further, the bookkeeper’s accounting experience did not materially change between her June promotion and the October termination decision, the court noted. TWI raised her salary, there were no formal performance reviews, and the outside accountants who reviewed TWI’s books had not identified the deficiencies TWI now emphasizes. “On this record, a jury could find the detailed performance problems genuinely motivated the termination or it could find TWI later developed the proffered explanations for a decision it made for another reason,” the court wrote.

Fraud prevention. The court also found evidence from which a jury could conclude that TWI’s explanation regarding fraud prevention was pretextual. TWI argued that, after discovering the office manager’s embezzlement, it sought to remove individuals connected to the company’s financial problems. Although TWI later claimed the bookkeeper had participated in or concealed the misconduct, contemporaneous board minutes did not identify any fraud-related role in her termination.

In addition, testimony indicated that the managing partner told the board only that she could not perform the job. Given the positive third-party assessment of her performance and the absence of any documented fraud-related rationale at the time of discharge, a jury could reasonably find TWI’s stated explanation was not its true reason for her termination, the court found.

RIF? Likewise, a jury could question whether the bookkeeper’s termination was actually part of a company-wide RIF. Although TWI later stated she was terminated in connection with a RIF following the company’s sale, the contemporaneous October 2022 meeting minutes never mentioned a RIF or described her termination as part of one. While the minutes supported an economic rationale based on financial difficulties, they also showed the owners discussing new hires and no other terminations, allowing a jury to doubt whether her discharge was truly part of a company-wide RIF.

In addition, TWI’s managing partner could not clearly identify how many employees the supposed RIF involved, described the number as “minimal,” and responded “I didn’t say that” when asked whether the personnel changes he identified constituted the purported RIF. He also acknowledged that TWI hired the 42-year-old and promoted the bookkeeper during the RIF period. Thus, the court found the evidence created a triable issue of pretext and denied TWI’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 4:25-cv-00050-AKB.

Judge: Brailsford, A.

Attorneys: Jacob S. Wessel, I (Thomsen Holman Wheiler) for Donna Hannan. Jared Wayne Allen (Beard St. Clair Gaffney) for Teton West of Idaho, LLC.

Companies: Teton West of Idaho, LLC

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge IdahoNews