Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D. Kan.: Case against Learjet and Bombardier cleared for trial, (Mar 28, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

The employee’s direct supervisor had at one point commented that the employee was like “one of those old guy shop teachers.”

A federal district court in Kansas determined that an age discrimination lawsuit against Learjet and Bombardier may proceed to trial, finding sufficient evidence that a 59-year-old former employee’s termination may have been motivated by age bias. The court concluded that disputed facts about the principal engineer specialist’s performance, procedural irregularities in the firing process, and alleged ageist comments by company executives should be evaluated by a jury. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s separate retaliation claim, concluding there was no evidence that the termination was connected to the internal complaint of discrimination filed shortly before the firing occurred (Wood v. Learjet, Inc., No. 18-CV-2621-EFM (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025)).

This lawsuit involves a former engineer at Learjet, a Kansas corporation that is a subsidiary of Canada-based Bombardier. After the Learjet 85 program where the employee initially worked was terminated in January 2015, he was transferred to the Bombardier Flight Test Center (BFTC) in Wichita, Kansas.

“Upper echelon.” At the BFTC, the employee was designated as a “design authority” for propulsion systems on the C-Series aircraft that was undergoing flight testing in 2015 and 2016. According to the employee, he was considered among the “upper echelon” of the engineering staff due to his skill and experience.

Hierarchy. The hierarchical structure at BFTC included “individual contributors” reporting to supervisors or “section chiefs,” who reported to managers, then to directors, and finally to the Vice President of the Flight Test Center. The employee reported to a supervisor, who reported to a manager. The supervisor’s manager reported to the Director of Systems Engineering.

More young people. According to the employee, in late 2014 or late 2015, the director of systems engineering presented a diagram of the BFTC workforce represented by an inverted triangle and reportedly discussed “how there were too many older people at the top and not enough younger people.” In one presentation, he allegedly stated that Bombardier or BFTC “would like to see more young people in the company’s workforce.”

Additionally, testimony indicated that the vice president of the BFTC made a presentation stating that “the average age of the company was too high, and the company planned to reduce the age of the company with an age bias hiring policy.” The court also noted that the employee’s direct supervisor made a comment referring to the employee as “one of those old guy shop teachers.”

Performance issues. While at BFTC, the employee received an overall performance rating of “fully meets expectations” in a 2015 review, although receiving some lower ratings related to use of the Task Management System (TMS), a database used to track and manage employee tasks.

In January 2016, the employee’s supervisor designated him as a “focal” for the power plant team, responsible for organizing and distributing work within the team. By June 2016, the supervisor removed the employee from this role and replaced him with a 40-year-old coworker, citing issues with deliverables not being completed efficiently and on time.

Shortly thereafter, the employee’s supervisor and the supervisor’s manager decided to place the employee on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Before it was issued, the employee met with a human resources business partner and the director of systems engineering expressing his intent to resign rather than complete the PIP process. The director convinced the employee to stay.

The PIP, initiated in June 2016, focused on improving organizational skills and required meeting an 85 percent completion rate for tasks in the TMS system. The parties disputed whether the employee was complying with the PIP requirements.

Engine thrust incident. As the design authority for propulsion systems, the employee was responsible for setting rated engine thrust. During a pre-flight review in July 2016, a discrepancy was noticed between the maximum thrust rating that was approved and the rating expected for the flight plan. The flight crew refused to fly until the engines were properly configured, resulting in the cancellation of the test flight.

Shortly after the incident, the manager of the employee’s supervisor emailed the human resources business partner stating that he wanted to “end [the] PIP now and proceed with termination with cause,” noting that “this lack of diligence and follow through is another example why we can no longer have confidence in [the plaintiff’s] abilities.”

The employee disputed responsibility for the engine thrust issue and maintained it was not a safety violation. According to the employee, the supervisor’s manager did not ask about the incident or why the thrust rating was set below the rating expected for the test flight. The engineer was terminated in August 2016, before completing the 90-day PIP.

Internal complaint and retaliation claim. Prior to his termination, the employee filed an online EEO complaint with Bombardier’s Corporate Compliance office in Montreal, alleging age discrimination. The court noted that evidence showed that the employee’s supervisor, the supervisor’s manager, the director of systems engineering, and the human resources business partner did not know about the employee’s complaint until after his termination.

Prima facie case. The court found that the employee had established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, which prohibits employment discrimination against employees 40 years of age or older. To proceed with an ADEA claim, the court applied the established four-part test requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate specific elements of potential discrimination.

First, the employee successfully demonstrated membership in the protected age group by proving to be 59 years old, well above the ADEA’s 40-year threshold for protection. Second, the termination of employment clearly constituted an adverse employment action under the law. On the third element, despite the employer’s arguments that the employee was not satisfactorily performing his duties, the court determined the employee was qualified for the position based on performance reviews showing he was “fully meeting expectations” overall and had the same qualifications when terminated as when hired.

The fourth element—showing differential treatment compared to those outside the protected class—was more complex. The court examined multiple forms of evidence suggesting potential age bias, including testimony that younger workers replaced the employee’s duties, instances where the employee was treated differently than his younger comparators, and ageist comments allegedly made by company executives about reducing the average age of the workforce. The court concluded this collective evidence was sufficient to raise an inference that the employee was treated less favorably than younger individuals.

Age factor. The court emphasized that under the ADEA, the employee ultimately carries a heightened evidentiary requirement to prove that age was the “but-for” cause of termination—meaning that while age need not be the sole factor, it must be “the factor that made a difference” in the employer’s decision. The court determined that the factual disputes about performance, procedural irregularities, and alleged ageist comments presented sufficient questions that a reasonable jury should evaluate as to whether the termination was due to the employee’s age rather than the employer’s stated reasons.

Nondiscriminatory reasons. While Learjet and Bombardier presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination—alleged performance issues and the engine thrust configuration error—the court concluded that there were disputed issues of fact that precluded summary judgment on the age discrimination claim.

The court noted disputed facts regarding the employee’s performance, evidence that the employee was making progress on the PIP before termination, procedural irregularities in the investigation of the thrust configuration issue, and the fact that other individuals involved in the thrust configuration issue were not disciplined. These disputes, combined with the alleged ageist comments by management, were sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination that should be decided by a jury.

Retaliation claim. As to the retaliation claim, the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the employee could not establish a causal connection between his EEO complaint and termination because the evidence showed that the manager of the plaintiff’s supervisor, who made the termination decision, was not aware of the protected activity at the time.

The case is No. 18-CV-2621-EFM.

Judge: Melgren, E.

Attorneys: Anthony E. LaCroix (LaCroix Law Firm) for Mark Wood. Charles E. McClellan (Foulston Siefkin) for Learjet, Inc.

Companies: Learjet, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation KansasNews