Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—E.D. Pa.: Public defender, fired after being placed on a PIP, cannot advance claim, (Apr 29, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

He failed to show pretext, and his arguments were insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact when viewed alongside his long-standing performance issues.

A former public defender sued the County of Delaware after he was terminated, claiming age discrimination. A Pennsylvania federal district court held that the county met its burden to show a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, based on the numerous performance issues exhibited by the public defender. Moreover, he failed to show pretext and failed to offer evidence that would lead a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve the county’s explanation or conclude that age was a motivating factor (Baldini v. County of Delaware, No. 24-1456 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2025)).

The public defender in this case worked for the County of Delaware beginning in March 2008.

Performance concerns. In early 2022, concerns regarding the public defender’s job performance began to accumulate. On February 23, 2022, the chief-of-appeals raised issues about his performance in a particular case criticizing his courtroom conduct and legal preparation. A subsequent meeting with the his supervisor and union representatives addressed various deficiencies, including failure to document actions, expeditiously resolve cases, and submit files for supervisory review. He was reassigned to a new courtroom but allegedly failed to turn over case files.

PIP. On April 26, 2022, further review of the case in question revealed additional problems: lack of familiarity with the Rules of Evidence, failure to oppose motions, and inability to prepare a sentencing memorandum. The public defender was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) on May 16, 2022. Over the following months, he repeatedly failed to meet expectations, including missing his appearances at preliminary hearings, failing to withdraw from a case as requested by his supervisor, not responding to emails, and failing to use required case management systems.

Termination. The public defender was suspended without pay in August 2022, and his PIP was supplemented with new tasks. Despite reminders in November 2022 and February 2023, he failed to use the required referral system, to submit typed notes, or to log into the Offender Management System. On March 15, 2023, he was recommended for termination, which was finalized shortly before his 60th birthday. He subsequently filed an age discrimination charge with the EEOC, then filed suit. The county moved for summary judgment.

Prima facie case. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, it was undisputed that public defender had established a prima facie case: he was over 40, suffered an adverse employment action, and met the qualifications for his job.

Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Shifting the burden to the county to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, it offered extensive documentation of the public defender’s performance issues, including failure to manage cases, submit documentation, and follow directives. Despite repeated coaching, a PIP, and reminders to use internal systems, he did not comply. The court held that these performance issues, which spanned more than a year before his termination, were sufficient to satisfy the county’s burden.

Pretext. Moreover, the public defender failed to show that this justification was pretextual. The court rejected his argument for pretext through several means, such as his demonstrated dedication to his clients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; allegations that other older attorneys were also targeted or treated unfairly; and a statement allegedly made by a supervisor: “I hate old white men.” The federal district court found these arguments unpersuasive, holding that general commitment does not rebut specific, well-documented performance issues. Unlike in other discrimination cases where plaintiffs had consistently positive evaluations, the public defender’s record included multiple documented deficiencies.

The court also found evidence that other older attorneys were treated unfairly was circumstantial and not probative of the public defender’s individual case; even if others experienced discrimination, that did not establish pretext. Finally, the court declined to consider the statement attributed to a supervisor, as it came from an unsworn declaration and an affidavit lacking personal knowledge. Even if considered, the court noted, the comment would be insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact when viewed alongside the public defender’s long-standing performance issues. He failed to offer evidence that would lead a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve the county’s explanation or conclude that age was a motivating factor. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.

The case is No. 24-1456.

Judge: Baylson, M.

Attorneys: Justin Bernstein (Kenneth R. Schuster & Associates) for John Baldini. John E.D. Larkin, Office of the General Counsel, for County of Delaware.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees PennsylvaniaNews