Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—E.D. Tenn.: Tennessee woman may continue her age discrimination claim against property management company, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

Various alleged statements made to the plaintiff about retiring constituted sufficient direct evidence of age discrimination to survive summary judgment.

A 65-year-old woman, twice demoted and ultimately terminated by a Cleveland-based property management company, may proceed to trial with her age discrimination claims against the employer, a Tennessee federal district court found. Various alleged statements made to the plaintiff about retiring constituted sufficient direct evidence of age discrimination to survive, and though the employer met its burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination—the plaintiff’s performance issues—there were triable issues as to pretext (Griffin v. Millennia Housing Management, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-248 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 6, 2025)).

Property manager. A 65-year-old woman was employed by a Cleveland-based property management company from 2016 until her termination on June 22, 2023. She rose through the ranks, beginning as a Property Manager and ultimately becoming a Regional Property Director in 2021. Her responsibilities expanded to include management of multiple Florida properties, which were known to have preexisting compliance issues.

Remarks about her age. Though the plaintiff initially received strong reviews and positive feedback, beginning around 2018—2019, various executives allegedly began making remarks about the plaintiff’s age and retirement, such as “letting the younger generation take over,” and “At your age, it’s time to retire.”

PIP. In 2022—2023, the defendants claimed the plaintiff’s performance declined, especially at the Jacksonville properties, and discussed placing her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), presented her with two options: accept severance or a demotion with a PIP, which the plaintiff chose. Shortly after, the CEO emailed colleagues suggesting the plaintiff be asked to resign, and despite her written response contesting the PIP and noting improvements, the plaintiff was again offered demotion. Ultimately, she was terminated and her duties were reassigned to a 39-year-old replacement.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and asserting she was replaced by younger employees and targeted with age-related comments. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s poor performance was the legitimate reason for termination.

Analysis. The federal district court addressed the procedural issue under rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewing whether there were no material facts at issue, so that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Direct evidence of age discrimination. The court held that the plaintiff successfully met the threshold to overcome summary judgment on her age discrimination claim through direct evidence. The “alleged statement to Plaintiff that ‘at your age, it is time to retire’ constitutes sufficient direct evidence of age discrimination to survive summary judgment,” the federal district court held. “A reasonable jury could find that [those] comments are not general inquiries or suggestions that Plaintiff retire, but rather discriminatory comments that explicitly invoke Plaintiff’s age, similar to ‘quit because you’re too old’ or statements about ‘wanting someone younger.’” Moreover, the court held, because that statement was made shortly before the plaintiff’s termination, it could be viewed by a reasonable jury to be in temporal proximity, meaning the plaintiff has sufficiently shown direct evidence that age was the but-for cause of her termination.

Burden-shifting. Even when viewing the plaintiff’scircumstantial evidence, she satisfied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test, the court held, and while the employer met its burden by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—the plaintiff’s performance issues—there were triable issues of pretext. For example, the court noted policy inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s PIP, such as unrealistic “100% quarterly inspection” requirements, and errors in her 2022 performance review calculation, along with previous positive feedback showing measurable progress before termination. Additionally, the plaintiff’s replacements were substantially younger, and some performance issues were arguably misattributed after she lost oversight of certain properties. Those credibility determinations, the court noted, are reserved for a jury, not for summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-248.

Judge: McDonough, T.

Attorneys: Frank P. Pinchak (Burnette, Dobson & Pinchak) for Gail A. Griffin. Emily Costanzo (The Employment and Consumer Law Group) for Millennia Housing Management, LLC and Millennia Housing Development, Ltd.

Companies: Millennia Housing Management, LLC; Millennia Housing Development, Ltd.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims TennesseeNews