Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D. Pa.: 60-year-old Staples employee fired for failing to meet sales goals advances age, sex bias claims, (Jul 29, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

After 15 years of employment, the Strategic Account Manager lost her biggest client and was fired just 20 days into a 60-day associate success plan for failing to meet budgetary achievement goals.

A Strategic Account Manager for Staples, Inc., and Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., who was fired at the age of 60 and replaced by a 57-year-old, can take her age and sex discrimination claims to trial, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled. Among other things, the court found that for purposes of her ADEA claim, the three-year age difference was enough to show she was replaced by a sufficiently younger person and, as for her Title VII claim, there was evidence a male employee who, like the plaintiff, did not meet his monthly budget achievements, was not fired prior to completing an Associate Success Plan (Gonzalez v. Staples Contract Commercial LLC, No. 24-cv-02924 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2025)).

Prior to her termination, the employee had worked for Staples for over 15 years. When, in 2022, one of her biggest clients stopped purchasing uniforms from the company, the employee failed to meet her monthly total budget achievements for several months. Despite this, Staples did not reduce her sales forecast and budget achievement goals.

ASP and termination. In August 2023, the employee was placed on an Associate Success Plan (ASP) to address this failure. She was fired 20 days into the 60-day plan. At that time, she was 60 years old and was the oldest member of her sales team over the past two years.

Age discrimination. Denying summary judgment against the former employee’s age discrimination claim, the court first found she sufficiently established a prima facie case. She was 60 years old at the time of the adverse action, her termination, and she could be deemed qualified because she had been in her role for over 15 years. In addition, said the court, a reasonable jury could find that a sufficiently younger individual replaced her because the company assigned a 57-year-old individual to her accounts and a reasonable jury could determine that the three-year age difference was sufficiently younger.

As to the company’s stated reason for firing the employee—her inability to meet her goals for eight consecutive months—a reasonable jury, the court stated, could find that this was merely pretextual. After the employee, the oldest member of her team, lost her biggest client, the company would not reduce her sales forecast and budget achievement goals. Further, her miscellaneous budget, at $1,500,000, was much larger than the $465-$19,068 budgets of her coworkers. Nor would the company assign her any new clients in 2023 despite acknowledging her ability to take on new work, instead assigning seven new customers to her team members.

Moreover, while the employee was told she would be assigned to an ASP if she failed to meet three consecutive budget goals, several younger employees on her team also failed to make three or more consecutive budget goals and were not placed on an ASP. For its part, Staples argued that it placed the employee on an ASP after she missed eight consecutive budget goals but there was evidence another employee missed 11 of 12 periods of budget goals and was not assigned to an ASP. In addition, a 51-year-old employee who missed 11 consecutive budget goals was not assigned to an ASP and did not receive any formal warning.

Accordingly, said the court, a reasonable jury could find that disparate treatment in budget goals, including miscellaneous budget goals, customer assignments, and the lack of ASP assignments for younger employees constituted age discrimination such that age discrimination was a but-for cause of the employee’s termination.

Sex discrimination. Turning to the employee’s sex discrimination claim, the court again pointed out that she was a 60-year-old woman at the time of her termination and a reasonable jury could find her qualified for her job because she had worked for Staples as an Account Manager for 15 years. In addition, not only was she assigned to an ASP and then fired for purportedly not meeting her goals, similarly situated male employees either were not assigned to ASP’s despite also missing several consecutive budget goals or were given the full 60 days before they were terminated, evidence that could give rise to a reasonable inference of sex discrimination.

And as with the employee’s age discrimination claim, the court again found evidence of pretext as a reasonable jury could disbelieve Staples’ proffered reason of poor performance. Male employees who did not meet at least three consecutive monthly budgets, and even up to 11 monthly budgets, were not assigned to ASPs while the employee was and a male employee who was assigned to an ASP was given 60 days to meet sales goals and expectations and then terminated at the end of the 60-day period while the employee was fired 20 days into her 60-day ASP. These disparities, said the court, could lead a reasonable jury to disbelieve that Staples terminated the employee for not meeting expectations.

The case is No. 24-cv-02924.

Judge: Younge, J.

Attorneys: Tiffanie C. Benfer (Hardwick Benfer) for Aliette Gonzalez. Wendy Sue Buckingham (Littler Mendelson) for Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc.

Companies: Staples Contract and Commercial LLC

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews