Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Pa.: Fired HR analyst advances claims involving replacement by younger employee of different race, (Mar 18, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

Most of the younger team members were not terminated during the department’s restructuring.

A 59-year-old Black employee, who was terminated during a restructuring of her department, can proceed to trial with her state and federal age and race discrimination claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled. Denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all the employee’s claims, the court found there was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to disbelieve the reason for terminating her was solely due to the restructuring where she was replaced by a 35-year-old employee of a different race. In addition, the employer admitted she was qualified for the department’s newly created position but refused to let her apply for it (Robinson v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, No. 1:22-CV-01704 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2025)).

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (OAG) hired the employee, a Black female, as a computer analyst in 1999. About five years into her employment, she joined the HR department as a Human Resource Analyst III.

Termination. In December 2020, OAG began to restructure its HR department by consolidating the employee’s position with that of a fellow employee into a singular HR Analyst III position. Both employees were fired, and, thereafter, OAG hired a 35-year-old for the newly created position. The employee alleged she was not able to apply for the new analyst position.

Charges filed. Thereafter, the employee, who was 59 years old when terminated, filed age and race discrimination claims under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. OAG filed this motion for summary judgment.

Inference of age discrimination. The court first addressed the employee’s PHRA age discrimination case, noting that only the fourth prong of her prima facie case—whether the circumstances of her termination gave rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination—was in dispute. The parties disputed whether the employee was replaced, or her termination resulted from a reduction in force. The court found she satisfied the fourth prong regardless of the characterization of her termination.

It was undisputed that OAG hired a 35-year-old for the new HR job. That fact satisfied the fourth prong under a replacement analysis. In addition, she pointed to evidence that OAG “retained employees not within the protected class” to satisfy the fourth prong under a reduction-in-force analysis. The additional HR analysts on her team consisted of significantly younger individuals than the employee, and most of those positions were not terminated.

Not considered for position. The court also found the record contained evidence that the circumstances of the OAG’s refusal to consider the employee for the new position gave rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. It was undisputed that OAG hired a 35-year-old for the new position and, thus, filled the position with a person not of the employee’s protected class. Therefore, the court found she had established a prima facie case of age discrimination for OAG’s failure to consider her for the new position.

Qualified for position. Next, the court fund there was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to disbelieve OAG’s reason for terminating the employee was solely due to a restructuring of the HR department. The court rejected OAG’s argument that it had concerns about her work performance. The employee pointed to numerous annual performance evaluations where she received satisfactory or better marks throughout her employment.

In addition, OAG admitted the employee was qualified for the position obtained by the 35-year-old. “[OAG’s] refusal to consider a former employee for a position that it admits met her qualifications constitutes a contradiction in [OAG’s] rationale for undertaking the employment actions,” the court wrote. Thus, the court denied OAG’s motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claim.

Inference of race discrimination. The court also denied OAG’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s race discrimination claims for similar reasons. Regarding her termination, again, only the fourth prong of her prima facie case was in dispute. The court found there was enough evidence to show an inference of intentional discrimination. The employee was replaced by an individual of a different race. In addition, the record showed that every remaining member of the HR team was Caucasian, and, thus, outside her protected class.

Regarding OAG’s failure to consider her for the new position, the employee also met her prima facie case. The record indicated the newly hired employee was an individual of a different race.

Pretext. Finally, the court found, based on the same pretext evidence presented for the employee’s age discrimination claim, that there was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to find pretext for OAG’s adverse actions on her race discrimination claims. She had satisfactory performance evaluations, had never been disciplined, and was qualified for the new position. Thus, the court denied OAG’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.

The case is No. 1:22-CV-01704.

Judge: Saporito, J., Jr.

Attorneys: Andrew S. Abramson (Abramson Employment Law) for Anita Robinson. Anthony R. Bowers, Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews