Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—M.D. Fla.: Hertz security officer, warned for alleged assault, could not establish age discrimination, (Oct 10, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He was not fired and, in fact, received a merit-based salary increase the following year.

A Herz corporate security officer who was issued a final written warning—which did not result in discharge and, in fact, was followed by a merit-based raise—after a branch manager reported that he verbally and physically assaulted her, failed to establish either age discrimination or retaliation, even though his own manager had previously stated to him “you’re 50, you have a pension, right?” Concluding that the officer could not establish he was subjected to an adverse employment action, a federal district court in Florida found that disciplinary warnings are not adverse employment actions when they have no tangible effect on employment, and the mere potential of future termination is not tangible (Epperson v. The Hertz Corp., No. 2:24-cv-383-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2025)).

Hertz. The plaintiff works as a corporate security officer at Hertz, and he began his employment there in August 2022. The alleged discrimination occurred over a year later.

Discussed pay structure? In March 2023, his direct supervisor told his manager that the officer and a group of corporate security specialists had discussed their pay structure and job status. After that conversation, the manager allegedly began acting negatively toward him.

Age invoked? Later that month, the manager stated to the officer during a phone conversation, “you’re 50, you have a pension, right?” and sent him various job opportunities. Over the next couple of months, the officer had other interactions with the manager in which the latter used profanity and complained about Hertz’s policies, but he never directed any comment or conduct toward the officer.

Complained to supervisor. On May 1, 2023, the officer contacted his direct supervisor to discuss his interactions with the manager. The supervisor investigated, and although he was able to substantiate the officer’s complaints regarding the manager’s profanity and criticisms, he could not confirm any allegations regarding the manager’s conduct directed toward the officer.

Manager reprimanded, parties moved on. The manager was nonetheless verbally reprimanded, he voluntarily apologized to the officer, and the officer stated he was satisfied and wanted to move on. He raised no further concerns about the manager.

Alleged assault of California branch manager. Then three months later, a branch manager reported that the officer verbally and physically assaulted her at a Hertz facility in Oceanside, California. While the incident was being investigated, he was suspended with pay.

Retaliatory suspension? He complained to the assigned investigator into the incident that the suspension was retaliation by his supervisor and manager for his May 2023 complaints about the manager. But neither had any involvement in the decision to suspend him.

Final written warning. Ultimately, the investigator could not confirm whether the officer physically assaulted the branch manager, so she recommended that he receive a first and final written warning for his conduct and that he attend de-escalation training. The company’s senior director of global security approved her recommendation, and on August 21, 2023, the officer received a first and final written warning.

Merit-based raise nonetheless. The officer was not fired, and in fact, he received a merit-based salary increase the following year.

Lawsuit. However, he sued, alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

No adverse action. Granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to both claims, the court found that the officer could not establish that he was subjected to an adverse employment action. Disciplinary warnings, the court found, are not adverse employment actions when they have no tangible effect on employment, and the mere potential of future termination is not tangible. Finally, any purported enhanced oversight and scrutiny was not itself a tangible effect on the officer’s employment, and he also identified no tangible effect resulting from the increased scrutiny he alleged.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-383-SPC-DNF.

Judge: Chappell, S.

Attorneys: Benjamin H. Yormak (Law Offices of Benjamin H. Yormak) for Steven Epperson. Alexandre S. Drummond (Seyfarth Shaw) for The Hertz Corp.

Companies: The Hertz Corp.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation FloridaNews