Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—E.D. Wash.: Associate Vice President for health company failed to sustain claims that he was terminated due to age, (Oct 6, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

He was terminated after kissing and sending inappropriate messages to a subordinate in violation of company policy, so he could not show he was “performing satisfactory work” as necessary to establish a prima facie case.

A former Elevance Health Companies Associate Vice President, who did not dispute kissing an indirect subordinate employee or sending her messages about a relationship, failed to establish a prima facie case that his subsequent termination was based on his age (60 when terminated), a federal district court in Washington concluded. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the employee’s claim for age discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), finding that his violation of the employer’s personal relationship policy meant he was not “performing satisfactory work,” a necessary element of his prima facie case of age discrimination, or that the reason given for his termination was pretextual. The court also granted summary judgment and dismissed other claims (Healy v. The Elevance Health Companies, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00322-RLP (E.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2025)).

Relationship policy. The employer’s Family and Personal Relationship Policy (“Relationship Policy”) prohibits, among other things, personal relationships (such as casual dating or sexual involvement without the intention of a long-term relationship) where the result would be an employee “having a direct or indirect supervisor/subordinate relationship” with the other person. Employees are required to disclose to the employer a personal relationship whenever one occurs, and the failure to disclose is itself grounds for termination. Even where the relationship is disclosed, termination is a possible consequence under the Relationship Policy.

Improper conduct. It is undisputed that the Associate VP kissed an indirect subordinate after a work event in November 2020, and later that evening sent her a text message, “I know we can make this work. [Kissing emoji.]” He did not disclose this conduct to the employer. The subordinate, who denied ever reciprocating the employee’s advances, later reported his conduct after a contentious discussion with him over her job performance in November 2022. She also reported other sex-related conduct by him, which he disputed. After an investigation, the employer terminated the Associate VP for violating the Relationship Policy. Having terminated him for cause, the employer also cancelled stock options that had not yet vested.

The employee sued, alleging he was terminated due to his age, in violation of WLAD. He also brought several common law claims, including IIED and Conversion, based on the cancellation of his stock options. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

No discrimination. The summary judgment analysis of an age discrimination claim under WLAD involves the same McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework as in claims under federal law. The court first held that the employee could not satisfy his prima facie case because his for-cause termination for violating the Relationship Policy means he was not “performing satisfactory work,” one of the prima facie case elements. The court found “irrelevant” the employee’s assertion that termination was an unwarranted response to his actions. His conduct violated the employer’s stated policy, and thus he could not demonstrate that he performed satisfactory work.

But even if the employee could demonstrate a prima facie case, he could not establish that the proffered reason for his termination was pretextual, the court explained. The employee’s only evidence of age discrimination was vague self-reported rumors he testified about at his deposition that he heard the employer was discriminating against older employees, and that he believed his termination was a cost-saving measure. When stacked against the “abundant and uncontroverted evidence” that the employee had engaged in conduct that violated the Relationship Policy and was terminated after a subsequent internal investigation, the employee’s “conclusory assertions and speculation” did not create a triable issue of fact on pretext, the court decided.

Emotional distress. The court also granted summary judgment on the IIED claim. The employee’s claim was premised on his termination and the termination of stock options. But as just noted, the employee was terminated for violating the Relationship Policy, and a “routine discharge” does not amount to the type of outrageous conduct necessary to sustain an IIED claim under Washington law.

Conversion. Finally, the employee’s conversion claim based on the cancellation of his stock options failed because the option agreements all provide that termination for cause is grounds for terminating the options. The employee did not dispute he was terminated for cause, asserting only that the termination was not justified under the circumstances. But there was no genuine dispute as to the grounds for his termination or that it was for cause. By enforcing the options as written, the employer did not act without “lawful justification,” as is required for a conversion claim.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00322-RLP.

Judge: Pennell, R.

Attorneys: Scott Andrew Volyn (Volyn Law Firm) for Cornelius Healy. Erin Rayner Mangum (Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete) for Elevance Health Companies Inc. f/k/a Anthem, Inc.

Companies: Elevance Health Companies Inc.; Anthem, Inc.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims TortClaims WashingtonNews