Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—N.D. Cal.: Older sales manager, let go in RIF, advances ADEA claim, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Elizabeth C. Pope, J.D.

The sales manager’s contention that his supervisor considered his age when selecting him for inclusion in a large reduction in force (RIF) constituted sufficient evidence at summary judgment that his dismissal was pretextual.

A federal trial court in California declined to grant summary judgment to an employer on a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA, where an older sales manager, let go as part of a reduction in force (RIF), presented evidence that the employer considered his age when selecting him for inclusion in the RIF. Although the employer successfully argued that it did not breach its employment agreement with the employee, the court also declined to dismiss on summary judgment the employee’s other wrongful termination claims, including a separate breach of contract claim and California labor law claims (Graham v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 23-cv-04865-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2025)).

Employment agreement. In 2019, Honeywell International hired the employee as a sales manager. In 2021, the employee negotiated a higher salary and incentive package and signed a new employment agreement. About a year later, Honeywell terminated his employment as part of a large RIF. The employee filed suit, alleging, among other things, age discrimination, breach of contract, and California labor law violations. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

Age discrimination. Applying the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court denied Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim. First, the employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination by presenting undisputed evidence that at least some of his sales accounts were transferred to employees more than 20 years younger than him. Next, Honeywell established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination using the “same-actor inference”, i.e., within a short period of time, the same supervisor hired the employee and then approved his inclusion in the RIF. Finally, for purposes of summary judgment, the employee successfully used direct evidence of pretext to claim that regardless of Honeywell’s justifications, the employee’s age was the reason for his termination. This included the employee’s assertion that he was told by a supervisor that he was “the one that can most take [the] hit” of the RIF and that he was “going to be retiring anyway in six or seven months.”

Breach of contract. The employee also alleged two breaches of contract: (1) Honeywell breached his employment agreement by terminating him prior to his chosen retirement date in 2023 and (2) Honeywell breached its Sales Incentive Plans (SIPs) by failing to pay the employee all the incentive payments he had earned. Regarding the employment agreement, the court granted Honeywell’s summary judgment motion. The employment agreement expressly stated that the employee’s employment with Honeywell was on an “at will” basis. Regarding the SIPs, however, the court rejected Honeywell’s assertion that language in the SIPs permitting it to make changes to each SIP meant there was no intention to form an enforceable contract. Other language in the SIPs indicates they are meant to be viewed as contracts. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the SIPs constitute enforceable contracts, the court concluded that summary judgment on this claim was inappropriate.

California labor law claims. The court’s disposition of the employee’s state unpaid wages claim (Cal. Lab. Code § 201(a)) mirrored its conclusions on the breach of contract claims. With respect to any wages claimed to be owed after the date of discharge, the court found for Honeywell, because it did not breach the employment agreement by terminating the employee. With respect to any payments owed under the SIPs, however, given the disputed facts regarding the nature of the SIPs, the court denied Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment. The court also denied summary judgment on the employee’s California waiting time penalties claim (Cal. Lab. Code § 203(a)).

Other claims. The court also declined to dismiss on summary judgment the employee’s quantum meruit, fraudulent concealment, unfair competition and punitive damages claims.

The case is No. 23-cv-04865-RFL.

Judge: Lin, R.

Attorneys: E. Jeffrey Banchero (The Banchero Law Firm) for Maxwell A. Graham. Shannon R. Clawson (Ogletree Deakins) for Honeywell International Inc.

Companies: Honeywell International Inc.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Layoffs Discharge CaliforniaNews