Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—S.D.W. Va.: Bank secures dismissal of longtime manager’s age bias claim despite substantially younger replacement, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

A 12-year age difference between the terminated manager and her replacement supported an inference of age discrimination, but extensive documentation of her prolonged underperformance defeated any showing of pretext.

A longtime bank employee who was terminated at age 53 could not proceed with her age discrimination claim under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, even though her replacement was 12 years younger and the bank had contemplated firing her before her performance improvement plan ended. Granting summary judgment to the bank, a federal district court in West Virginia found that the manager established a prima facie case based on her substantially younger replacement, but extensive objective evidence of her poor performance supported the bank’s nondiscriminatory explanation for the discharge, and she offered no evidence connecting the decision to her age. Her gender discrimination claim also failed after she did not address it in opposing summary judgment (Parker v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., No. 5:25-cv-00424 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 27, 2026)).

Performance problems. The employee began working for a predecessor bank in 1993 and was promoted in 2017 to manager of retail banking for a cluster of branches within one of the bank’s regional markets. The bank evaluated managers using a “three-legged stool approach” encompassing productivity, partner goals, and personal development.

The employee’s productivity scores began declining before her termination. A score of 3.0 was considered acceptable, and anything below 2.0 reflected severe underperformance. Her average score was 2.49 in 2022 but fell to 1.6 in 2023. During 2023, she consistently ranked among the three least productive retail banking managers and was the least productive manager during six of the 11 months for which scores were provided.

In October 2023, the bank placed her on a 60-day performance improvement plan addressing leadership and team management, talent development and coaching, and change management. In December, an HR business partner wrote another HR official about the bank’s “plan to most likely exit” the employee and the need to manage the potential dismissal with an eye toward possible risks. The other official responded that she would help “get this one across the finish line.”

The bank subsequently issued the employee a written warning based on continued declines in her cluster’s performance. She appealed, attributing the problems in part to illnesses affecting several employees, turnover, her participation in an associate lawsuit, and her need to perform loan-production duties while managing eight branches. The bank upheld the warning.

In February 2024, the bank terminated her. About three weeks later, it hired a 41-year-old man to fill her position. The employee sued under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, alleging age and gender discrimination.

Age inference. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework used for West Virginia Human Rights Act claims, the court first considered whether the employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination.

Her internal appeal and the HR emails did not directly support an inference of age bias. The appeal never alleged age discrimination, and the emails showed only that bank officials considered terminating her before the PIP ended. Nothing in the emails linked that plan to her age. The court explained that finding an age-based motive from those communications would require speculation.

Nor did the bank’s alleged failure to follow its disciplinary procedures independently create an inference of discrimination. The employee relied in part on Wannamaker-Amos v. Purem Novi, Inc., 126 F.4th 244 (4th Cir. 2025), which recognized that an employer’s failure to follow its disciplinary policies can support a finding of pretext. But such evidence does not automatically establish discriminatory intent.

The court similarly distinguished Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293 (4th Cir. 2022). There, the employee not only identified departures from personnel procedures but also presented evidence that white employees involved in similar conduct received more favorable treatment. Here, the manager identified no younger employee who received more favorable treatment under comparable circumstances.

Her replacement, however, presented a closer question. Under Knotts v. Grafton City Hospital, 237 W. Va. 169, 786 S.E.2d 188 (2016), replacement by a “substantially younger” employee can support a prima facie age discrimination claim, with age differences of 10 years or more generally considered sufficiently substantial.

Although the court was not persuaded that the particular circumstances conclusively established that the 41-year-old replacement was substantially younger than the 53-year-old employee, it viewed the evidence in her favor. It concluded that the 12-year difference was sufficient at the prima facie stage.

Documented underperformance. The bank nevertheless offered ample evidence of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination—her sustained inability to meet performance expectations.

Of 21 productivity scorecards covering February 2022 through November 2023, 20 reflected below-acceptable performance, and nine indicated severe underperformance. She was among the two least productive managers for 16 months and ranked last for seven months. Moreover, 86 percent of employees reporting to her received below-acceptable productivity scores, including 62 percent whose scores reflected severe underperformance.

Her results under the bank’s partner-goals metric were similarly poor. Between May and December 2023, she was on pace to meet no more than 22 percent of those goals in any month and, during four months, was not on pace to meet a single partner goal.

That evidence undermined her contention that the bank relied primarily on management’s subjective assessment. The record instead contained a “lengthy paper trail” documenting deficiencies through monthly productivity scores and specific partner goals.

No pretext. The employee pointed to positive aspects of her performance, including a 2022 annual review stating that she exceeded goals in wealth management and non-interest income. She also offered explanations for her cluster’s difficulties and evidence that she had sought guidance from supervisors.

But those facts did not negate the continuing decline in her productivity scores or her persistent failure to satisfy partner goals. The court also distinguished Longerbeam v. Shepherd University, 252 W. Va. 264, 922 S.E.2d 264 (2024), where an older employee presented evidence that younger coworkers were repeatedly treated more favorably despite their own workplace deficiencies. The bank manager offered no comparable evidence that younger employees were held to different standards or received more favorable treatment.

The evidence that bank officials were planning her termination before her PIP expired also failed to establish pretext. Although it could show that the bank had already contemplated ending her employment, no evidence, apart from the age of her eventual replacement and her own assertions, linked that plan to age.

Thus, while the substantially younger replacement permitted the employee to clear the relatively low prima facie threshold, it did not rebut the bank’s well-documented nondiscriminatory explanation. Because she presented no additional direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could find that the performance rationale was pretext for age discrimination, the bank was entitled to summary judgment.

The court also granted summary judgment on the gender discrimination claim because the employee did not address that claim in her opposition. Her alternative public-policy claims were moot because the bank was undisputedly subject to the West Virginia Human Rights Act.

The case is No. 5:25-cv-00424.

Judge: Volk, F.

Attorneys: Paul L. Frampton, Jr. (Atkinson & Frampton) for Deborah N. Parker. Brian J. Moore (Dinsmore & Shohl) for First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

Companies: First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims WestVirginiaNews