Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—E.D. Pa.: Telling 62-year-old sales director he needed refresher course on technology not direct evidence of age bias, (Jun 17, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The sales director could neither show direct evidence, nor indirect evidence of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

A federal court in Pennsylvania granted summary judgment against a 62-year-old sales director’s claim of age discrimination. A statement by the sale director’s supervisor that he would like the director to take a refresher course on the technology necessary for his job was not direct evidence of age discrimination and he did not establish pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework (Geltman v. AllCity Network, No. 24CV2255 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 13, 2025)).

In August 2023, AllCity, a digital media company that produces podcasts and other sport-related media, began expanding into Philadelphia. As part of this effort, AllCity’s Vice President of Revenue hired the 62-year-old employee as sales director in the Philadelphia office, charging him with overseeing a team of account executives and meeting personal sales goals.

Unhappy. Within the first months following the sales director’s hire, the VP was unhappy with his work, in particular his repeatedly seeking help from AllCity’s Director of Business Development in the Denver office. Despite the VP’s direction that the sales director must stop using business development director to finalize his own materials, he continued to do so.

Refresher course. At some point in mid-November, the VP told the sales director “as it pertains to technology, because in the past you may not have had to have done it, but because of your age, I would like you to take a refresher course” on the technology necessary to build sales materials. In early December, the sales director was terminated.

Thereafter, the sales director sued AllCity, alleging that his termination was due to his age, in violation of the ADEA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), the state constitution, and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (PFPO). AllCity moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court, concluding that the sales director’s ADEA, PHRA, and PFPO claims were largely identical, analyzed them as one.

In pursuing his case, the sales director argued that he established both direct and indirect evidence of age discrimination. The sales director pointed to the VP telling him that “as it pertains to technology, because in the past you may not have had to have done it, but because of your age, I would like you to take a refresher course” on the technology necessary to build sales materials.

Direct evidence of discrimination. The court noted that to establish direct evidence of age discrimination the sales director must present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that age was the cause of the discrimination, without resort to inference or presumption. The court rejected the sales director’s argument that the VP’s comment requesting that he take a refresher course on technology was direct evidence he was fired due to his age. The statement, the court stated, was at most evidence that age was a secondary factor in the decision to fire him and therefore was insufficient direct evidence to establish his age discrimination claim. Further, the VP’s comment, made weeks before the sales director’s termination, was at most a “stray remark” unrelated to the decision process that warranted no great weight. Thus, the court held that the sales director failed to establish his discrimination claim through direct evidence.

Indirect evidence of discrimination. Indirect evidence of age discrimination may be established under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Utilizing this framework, the court concluded that the sales director established his prima facie case for discrimination and AllCity was able to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action related to the director’s perceived poor job performance. To answer AllCity’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the sales director had to prove that his employer’s action was a pretext for an unlawful age discrimination. To do so, he could not simply show that the firing decision was wrong or mistaken but was pretext for discrimination.

In ruling that he failed to show pretext, the court rejected the sales director’s argument that the fact another person was hired to take over some of his job duties demonstrated that the decision to fire him for poor performance was pretextual.

The director also stated that two younger employees were placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) before they ultimately were fired. Because the director was terminated without the benefit of a PIP, he argued that he was treated differently from these younger employees, proving pretext. The court rejected this argument, concluding that the younger employees were not valid comparators because they were not treated differently and were not similarly situated in all relevant respects.

First, the younger employees, like the director, were subject to the same adverse employment action—termination—as the director. Second, not only were the younger employees not director-level employees, but the sales director provided no evidence establishing the job duties of these employees and making the connection that they shared similar duties to him. Accordingly, the sales director could not rely on their PIP-prefaced termination to establish pretext.

The case is No. 24CV2255.

Judge: Bettlestone, W.

Attorneys: Benjamin David Salvina (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Steven Geltman. David J. Woolf (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath) for AllCity Network, Inc.

Companies: AllCity Network, Inc.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews