Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.N.H.: Salesman with Crohn’s disease, diabetes, gets trial on disability, age discrimination claims, (Nov 12, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He alleged that he overheard the new executive VP say that he “was an expensive employee to maintain.”

A salesman with Crohn’s disease and diabetes, discharged at age 58 by pharmaceutical and biotechnology suppliers during a pandemic-related reduction in force in April 2020, can proceed to trial with his disability discrimination, retaliation, and age discrimination claims, a federal district court in New Hampshire found. A jury could conclude that a new executive VP twice complained to high-ranking executives that the salesman was “expensive,” expressly disapproved of the salesman leaving a work obligation for a medical appointment, and approved his termination because he believed his recurrent medical leaves made him a costly employee. Further, almost all employees selected for the RIF were 40 years old or older, and another employee allegedly heard the VP state that the companies were looking to replace the salesman with someone in their 40s (Seaver v. Casella Sales & Marketing, Inc., No. 23-cv-221-LM (D.N.H. Nov. 10, 2025)).

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology suppliers. The defendants, according to the court, are suppliers for pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturing companies. Fluid-Flow acquired Casella in 2017.

Salesman. The plaintiff has 30 years’ experience as a salesman for companies such as Casella that supply processing equipment for the biotechnology industry. In May 2018, the companies hired him to work for Casella as a “Sales Specialist” in Casella’s outside sales group. Along with him, Casella employed two other Sales Specialists in the outside sales group.

Salary structure. The May 2018 offer letter from Casella to the salesman set forth the salary structure for the Sales Specialist position. His base salary for the 2018-2019 fiscal year was $130,000, and he could earn a bonus if he met the sales goal set by Casella, or a percentage of that sales goal, for that fiscal year.

Medical conditions. The salesman began working for Casella in May 2018. Between June 2018 and August 2019, he was hospitalized at least six times from complications due to his medical conditions, which include Crohn’s disease and diabetes.

During this time, he experienced multiple instances of acute renal failure, diabetic shock, and a blood clot. He also had several doctors’ appointments that required him to take some or all of a day off from work. He notified the COO when he needed to take time off from work for a medical appointment or because of a hospitalization, and she never denied his requests for PTO.

Earned bonus, promoted. And despite his numerous hospitalizations and medical appointments during the 2018-2019 fiscal year, he met 100 percent or more of his sales goal for that fiscal year and earned a $25,000 bonus. In addition, in March 2019, the companies promoted him from Sales Specialist to Sales Manager of Casella’s outside sales group. As Sales Manager, he was responsible for supervising the other two salespeople in outside sales.

New executive VP hired. Then, in July 2019, the companies hired the new executive VP. He oversaw the “Life Sciences” business unit within Fluid-Flow, a group of 11 companies owned by Fluid-Flow which included Casella. In that role, the new VP was the COO’s manager, and she could not make hiring or firing decisions without his approval. In addition, the new VP took over the salesman’s managerial responsibilities, though the salesman retained the title of Sales Manager.

Aware of his hospitalizations. The new VP was undisputedly aware of at least two of the salesman’s hospitalizations.

VP’s comments. In addition, the salesman testified at his deposition that he overheard the new VP tell another executive at a sales meeting in September 2019 that “[The salesman’s] getting expensive.” According to the salesman, the comment was made about a month after he was hospitalized for seven days for acute renal failure.

In addition, the salesman alleged that, at a training seminar in the last quarter of 2019, the VP was “visibly upset” when the salesman told him he had to leave early for a medical appointment. According to the salesman, the VP later told him that his decision to leave the seminar early was a “bad move.”

Then, in February 2020, the salesman claimed, he overheard the VP say during a phone call with Fluid-Flow’s CEO that the salesman “was an expensive employee to maintain.”

RIF. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Fluid-Flow’s top executives instructed the COO to make recommendations for a reduction in force (RIF) within Casella. The new VP was among the executives instructing her to identify candidates for layoffs.

Initially, she recommended laying off only two employees from within the inside sales group. However, a Fluid-Flow executive informed her that additional cuts were necessary. At that point, she decided to recommend the salesman for termination. The VP signed off on her decision, and the salesman was terminated on April 8, 2020. He was 58 years old at the time.

Age distribution and new hire. Of the 17 employees the companies terminated at that time, 14 were age 40 or older. And less than a week after the salesman’s termination, the companies reached out to a salesperson in his 30s to fill a sales position. About a month after his termination, one of the salesman’s former coworkers told him that he overheard the VP stating they were looking for “someone in their forties” to fill the salesman’s position. Finally, on June 17, 2020, the companies posted a job opening for a salesperson in Casella’s outside sales group. The individual they eventually hired was approximately 45 years old.

Lawsuit. After filing administrative complaints with the EEOC and the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, the salesman filed suit in New Hampshire state court on February 24, 2023. The companies removed the action to federal district court and moved for summary judgment against all his claims. The salesman objected to summary judgment against only his claims of ADA disability discrimination and retaliation, and ADEA discrimination.

ADA disability discrimination. The court first found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the companies’ stated reason for the salesman’s termination—the RIF—was pretextual. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the salesman and drawing all inferences in his favor, the court found that he had produced evidence from which the jury could conclude that the new VP twice complained to high-ranking executives that the salesman was “expensive,” and that he expressly disapproved of the salesman leaving a work obligation for a medical appointment. A jury, according to the court, “could draw the reasonable inference that [the VP’s] joint decision with [the COO] to terminate [the salesman] in April 2020 was based at least in part on [the salesman’s] medical conditions.”

Though it was undisputed that Fluid-Flow’s executive suite instructed the COO to lay off employees as part of an overall RIF, she and the new VP jointly decided to terminate the salesman in late March or early April 2020, and as recently as February 2020, the VP had made the comments that the salesman was expensive. A reasonable jury, the court concluded, could infer from his comments, made close-in-time to his joint decision with the COO to terminate the salesman, that the companies’ stated reason for the salesman’s termination was a pretext for discrimination.

Retaliation. The salesman’s ADA retaliation claim likewise survived. The companies argued that no reasonable trier of fact would find a causal connection between the salesman’s medical leave and his termination. With one exception, they pointed out, the COO granted him all the time off he requested, and that she was the one who made the initial recommendation to terminate him. Here, as with the ADA discrimination claim, the court was not persuaded. A reasonable jury, the court concluded, could find that the COO lacked authority to terminate the salesman without the VP’s approval, and that the VP approved the salesman’s termination because he believed the salesman’s recurrent medical leaves made him an expensive employee. Construing that evidence in the light most favorable to the salesman, the court said, a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between the salesman’s medical leave and his termination.

ADEA discrimination. Finally, the salesman’s ADEA disability discrimination claim likewise survived the employers’ motion for summary judgment. It was undisputed that he was over 40 years old at the time of his termination, and in light of his resume and his performance and promotion while at Casella, a jury could reasonably conclude that he was qualified for the position from which he was terminated. As for whether the companies treated age neutrally in carrying out their RIF, their own interrogatory answers revealed that fully 14 of the 17 employees they terminated on April 8 and 9, 2020, were 40 years of age or older. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the salesman and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the court found that a jury could thus find the salesman’s prima facie case satisfied.

A reasonable jury could also conclude, said the court, that the companies’ stated reason for his termination was pretext for age discrimination. First, there was the evidence that almost all employees selected for termination were 40 years old or older. Second, the salesman also produced evidence that the VP was motivated by age-based considerations in jointly deciding with the COO to terminate him. According to the salesman, another Casella employee heard the VP state that they were looking to replace the salesman with someone in their 40s—i.e., someone approximately 10 years younger than the salesman. The VP also acknowledged at his deposition that, after the salesman’s termination, one of the VP’s subordinates reached out to a salesman with another company to gauge that salesman’s interest in a sales role at one of the companies the VP oversaw, and according to the VP, that company could have been Casella. The salesman was in his 30s. Finally, the person the companies eventually hired pursuant to the June 2020 job posting was approximately 45 years old.

The case is No. 23-cv-221-LM.

Judge: McCafferty, L.

Attorneys: Leslie H. Johnson (Law Office of Leslie H. Johnson) for William Seaver. K. Joshua Scott (Jackson Lewis) for Casella Sales & Marketing, Inc.

Companies: Casella Sales & Marketing, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge Covid19 NewHampshireNews