Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D. Mich.: Family Dollar director, taunted about age and weight, advances age-based claims related to his termination, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The director’s claim that Family Dollar denied him a promotion, for which he did not apply, based on his age and weight, also survived summary judgment.

Although a Family Dollar director who was terminated for unprofessional behavior failed to present direct evidence of age discrimination—despite allegations his supervisors told him numerous times he was “too old” and should retire—a federal court in Michigan found sufficient evidence of pretext, including questions surrounding the investigation that resulted in his termination, to preclude summary judgment on his federal and state-law age discrimination and retaliation claims. Isolated remarks based on his weight, however, were not sufficient to support his state-law weight discrimination claim. His age and weight failure-to-promote claims advanced, however (Turner v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 2-23-CV-12425-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3, 2025)).

Hired by Family Dollar as a zone operations director in 2018, the employee, who was then 55 years old, was responsible for providing support for sales and operational programs within his assigned zone of 12 states. He claimed that during his four-year tenure with the company, he was subjected to repeated ageist remarks, comments, and jokes as well as offensive remarks and jokes about his weight by coworkers and other senior managers, including the zone vice president (ZVP) whom he claimed acted as his supervisor.

Too old. He also claimed that while he frequently complained to the sales VP to whom he reported, the VP warned him to be careful around the ZVP because she preferred younger directors and he was “too old” to be on her team. Indeed, according to the employee, the ZVP told him several times he was “too old,” she wanted younger directors who were more “energetic,” and she offered to hire his fiancé as a tutor for her children to replace income if he were to retire.

Promotion denial. The employee also claimed that when a VP position became available in 2021, he asked the senior VP in charge about the application procedure and was told he did not need to apply because he was being considered for it. The sales VP also purportedly told him he was at the top of the list. He did not apply, was never interviewed, and two younger, less experienced individuals were hired instead.

Leadership meeting. In 2023, the employee attended a leadership meeting with several coworkers and vendors. At the end of the meeting, the ZVP contacted the sales VP and HR to discuss the employee’s purportedly unprofessional behavior toward vendors and associates, including yelling and berating various individuals and mocking mentally disabled persons. For his part, the employee denied the allegations and claimed he pleaded with the ZVP to stop his colleagues from making fun of his age and weight and threatened to report them all to HR.

Termination. After an investigation, HR substantiated the allegations against the employee and recommended his termination, which was approved by the sales VP and the senior VP.

Direct evidence. Suing under the ADEA and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) for age discrimination and retaliation and the ELCRA for weight discrimination, the employee argued that the various comments and jokes about his age and weight constituted direct evidence of discrimination and retaliation as to his termination. Disagreeing, the court found that while some of the statements could be characterized as “ageist insults,” they were also made by non-decisionmakers in the employee’s termination and many were not temporally near his termination or made in relation to his termination.

As to the ZVP, while she helped initiate, and participated in, the investigation of the employee, there was no evidence she was a decisionmaker, said the court, and none of her alleged statements, or the warning from the sales VP that she thought the employee was “too old,” had any temporal, or even tangential, connection to the termination. Nor was there any evidence of discriminatory statements by the decisionmakers—the sales VP and senior VP—the court observed, finding the employee failed to provide direct evidence of age discrimination.

Indirect method. Analyzing his claims under the indirect method, the court assumed that he established a prima face case of age and weight discrimination. As to his retaliation claims, it found he established a fact issue as to whether he engaged in protected activity when he repeatedly complained to the ZVP and sales VP about the ageist jokes and remarks and when, shortly before his termination, he allegedly pleaded with the VP to stop the jokes and comments and threatened to report everyone to HR.

The court also found evidence of a causal connection as he alleged that just days after he pleaded with and threatened to report the ZVP to HR, she initiated the investigation that led to his termination. There was also evidence that the sales VP, one of the decisionmakers, was aware of his complaints.

Pretext evidence. Because Family Dollar proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action—the employee’s unprofessional behavior as substantiated by the investigation—the court turned to evidence of pretext. The employee argued that the sales VP contacted HR at the ZVP’s request to initiate the investigation and that the sales VP also told him he knew the ZVP made up the allegations about the employee because she was afraid he was going to report her to HR. Although the VP denied making these statements to the employee, a reasonable jury, said the court, could find his alleged conduct at the meeting was not the real reason for his termination.

As to the investigation, the employee claimed that HR refused to interview witnesses who would have supported his version of events and omitted his allegations regarding the biases of the ZVP and sales VP. Finding that the investigation report was not as convincing as Family Dollar suggested, the court noted that many of the allegations against the employee were only supported by a few witnesses, with the majority of witnesses either not observing, recalling, or confirming that behavior. Further, the investigation was initiated by the ZVP and sales VP, to whom the employee had complained of age and weight-based discrimination, and only days after he purportedly told the ZVP that he was going to report everyone to HR if she did not stop the jokes and comments about his age and weight.

The employee also pointed out that some of the individuals making allegations against him in the investigation were the same individuals who had been harassing him about his age and weight, including the ZVP. The employee also claimed that he told HR during the investigation that the ZVP was fabricating the charges against him to cover up her own and others’ discriminatory treatment of him and ignoring his allegations of discrimination. However, HR included none of his allegations in the report.

Citing evidence of a climate of discriminatory remarks, comments, and jokes directed toward the employee based on his age, evidence of inconsistencies in Family Dollar’s investigation, and evidence of potential animus from which a reasonable juror might find pretext for age discrimination or retaliation, the court denied summary judgment on his age discrimination and retaliation claims.

Weight discrimination. Granting summary judgment against his weight discrimination and retaliation claims, however, the court pointed out that the employee provided evidence only of isolated remarks based on his weight.

Failure to promote. As to his claim for failure to promote due to age and weight, the court noted that while Family Dollar argued he never applied for the VP position, he contended that he was told by the sales and senior VPs that he did not need to apply because he was already being considered. Nor was there any evidence of a formal application policy for the position. Thus, said the court, his failure to apply for the position was not fatal to his claim.

Further, in support of his contention he was not selected because of his age, the employee also asserted that was told he did not receive the promotion because the senior VP wanted to go in a “younger” direction. Noting that Family Dollar failed to develop any argument against the position that its reasons for giving the VP position to another person were a pretext for age discrimination, the court denied summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 2:23-CV-12425-TGB-KGA.

Judge: Berg, T.

Attorneys: Brian Farrar (Sterling Attorneys at Law) for Michael G. Turner. Terry W. Bonnette (Nemeth Bonnette Brouwer) for Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Family Dollar Operations, LLC.

Companies: Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Family Dollar Operations, LLC; Family Dollar Stores, LLC

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination StateLawClaims Retaliation Discharge MichiganNews