Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—W.D. Ky.: Munitions mechanic’s claim that his reassignment was discriminatory goes to trial, (Dec 18, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The record suggested that the transfer “resulted in him working as a de facto supervisor, putting in extra hours to train his replacements and cleaning up their mistakes, all while he himself worked in a different area.”

Raytheon Company will face trial on a former munition mechanic’s age discrimination claim asserting that a manager, who had made an isolated remark about placing “young workers” on the prestigious line where he worked, transferred him to a less desirable area because of his age. A reasonable jury could conclude that the reassignment constituted an adverse employment action, and also infer pretext from changing explanations that were given for his reassignment, a federal district court in Kentucky ruled. However, he failed to defeat summary judgment on his retaliation claim since he could not demonstrate he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of his complaints to HR and the EEOC (McDowell v. Raytheon Company, No. 3:23-CV-00599-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2025)).

In 2004, the employee began working as an ordnance equipment mechanic (OEM) at Raytheon’s Louisville facility. He worked in the teardown area, where workers deconstruct munitions so that their components can be repurposed to build new munitions. He earned numerous awards and received praise from his supervisors.

“Young workers” remark. In early 2023, he was working on the ELX line of the teardown area, which involved deconstructing computerized components of munitions and was viewed as a prestigious role. On February 16, he was called into a meeting with his supervisor, his supervisor’s manager, and other workers. During the conversation, the manager remarked, “We’re going to place some young mechanics [in the ELX line].” The employee felt this comment was ageist and responded “sir, you can’t say that to me.” The manager responded, “Let me put it this way. I’m going to put some fresh, new, young mechanics in the area.” The employee asked to go to the HR office.

HR meeting. His supervisor accompanied him, and both men met with a HR representative. The employee reported the manager’s comments, which the supervisor confirmed, and the HR rep stated that the matter would be addressed. When the HR rep met with the manager, he admitted to making the comments, and the HR rep recommended that he apologize to the employee.

Confrontation. Later that day, the manager approached the employee and asked him to come and talk to him “like a man.” He responded that he did not wish to speak with him and asked to be left alone. A coworker who overheard the conversation stated that the manager approached the employee in an aggressive manner. The employee walked away and complained to the HR rep.

Reassignment. A few weeks later, the employee was reassigned from the ELX line to the Gun and Ammo line. However, he still had to come in an hour early to train the younger workers who replaced him. He began using his PTO because of the constant harassment at work, which he reported to the HR rep and his union.

Grievance. In March 2023, his union filed a grievance on his behalf. That August, Raytheon offered to return him to the ELX line, but he declined. Meanwhile, he filed an EEOC charge in April after he received what he perceived as a negative performance review.

Unrelated termination. In July 2023, he injured his shoulder in a workplace accident. In February 2024, he was seriously injured in a car accident that rendered him unable to return to work. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), he was terminated in August because he had been on injured leave for more than six months with no prognosis for return to work. He then brought this lawsuit alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA).

Isolated remarks. At the outset, the court rejected the employee’s contention that the manager’s remarks about “young mechanics” constituted direct evidence of age bias. Though he presented evidence that the manager was a decisionmaker, the remarks were isolated comments that would require a jury to make inferences to find that they were discriminatory. The manager did not say that he wanted younger workers on the ELX line, nor did he say that the employee was too old to work on the line, observed the court. Rather, he told the employee that the workers moving to the ELX line were “young.” While the remarks could serve as circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas framework, they were “not so pointedly prejudiced that they constitute direct evidence.”

Discriminatory adverse action. The court also found that triable issues existed as to whether the employee’s reassignment constituted a discriminatory adverse employment action. Some evidence indicated that the move was not materially adverse. For example, his pay, overtime opportunities, and supervisors remained the same. However, his new working conditions could also be seen as a demotion as he was moved out of a prestigious area where he had built a reputation as a competent worker with specialized expertise, he had to come to work an hour early to train his replacements, and he was essentially performing supervisory work without additional pay or a change in title. In sum, the record suggested that the transfer “resulted in him working as a de facto supervisor, putting in extra hours to train his replacements and cleaning up their mistakes, all while he himself worked in a different area.”

Shifting explanations. In addition, pretext could be inferred from Raytheon’s shifting explanations for the reassignment. At different times, the company suggested that the move was: (1) part of a cross-training initiative; (2) due to a lack of available work in ELX; and (3) part of a routine pattern of movement. The court found that while the second and third justifications were both in conflict with the first justification since movement for training purposes is proactive and aimed at improving the workforce, while movement in response to workload needs is reactive and aimed at improving the bottom line.

Other evidence was similarly unclear. Slides from an internal company presentation suggested that the employee was moved as part of a cross-training initiative. In contrast, emails between his superiors and HR stated that he was moved to “balance workload [and] to maintain efficiencies.” Finally, his supervisor testified that he was moved because the work in ELX had “dried up.”

Retaliation claim tossed. However, his retaliation claim failed because he did not demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of his complaints to HR and the EEOC. Though he pointed to the increased supervision from the manager, the Sixth Circuit has held that increased scrutiny is not an adverse employment action. The manager’s request that he talk to him “like a man” was arguably confrontational, but it did not have an actual effect on the conditions of his employment. Finally, the purportedly negative performance evaluation did not affect his pay, eligibility for overtime, or working conditions.

The case is No. 3:23-CV-00599-GNS-RSE.

Judge: Stivers, G.

Attorneys: Samuel R. Nicholson (Sam Nicholson Law Office) for Fred L. McDowell. Mitchel Terence Denham (McBrayer) for Raytheon Co.

Companies: Raytheon Co.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims KentuckyNews