Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Pa.: Restructuring shields employer from discrimination liability, (Dec 11, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A federal court determined that layoffs across age groups during DAS Companies’ mid-2022 restructuring undermined claims that a purchasing director’s termination was motivated by age or disability.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania determined that DAS Companies was entitled to summary judgment because a former purchasing director lacked evidence showing age or disability bias in its restructuring decisions. The court found that the employer articulated legitimate business reasons tied to company performance and structural changes and that the director did not present evidence from which a jury could disbelieve those reasons or infer discriminatory intent. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that the stated bases for termination were supported by undisputed facts, including contemporaneous layoffs affecting employees across age groups and without disabilities (Anthony v. DAS Companies, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-2041 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2025)).

The plaintiff in this case was hired as a purchasing director in 2019 and later supervised multiple categories within the company.

Parkinson’s diagnosis. In late 2021, the director informed his supervisor of a Parkinson’s diagnosis that caused hand tremors. The court noted that coworkers occasionally asked about the tremors, but the director acknowledged that he never heard derogatory comments about his condition or about age. There was no evidence that decisionmakers expressed animus toward older employees or individuals with disabilities.

Leadership change, overhaul. DAS underwent a leadership change in mid-2022 when the company’s founder resumed his role as president and CEO after reviewing financial results for 2021. He identified a need to regain control over purchasing operations, which he concluded had contributed to declining profits. Within weeks of reassuming leadership, he overhauled several aspects of the business. He eliminated an innovation lab, removed intermediaries between category managers and the purchasing vice president, and consolidated reporting structures. As part of these decisions, he made personnel changes affecting numerous employees.

Terminations. The director was among those terminated on the same day as two other employees, one older and one younger. In the months that followed, the company also terminated several other employees, most of whom were younger than the director. The court emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting that terminated employees other than the director had any disabilities, nor was there evidence that the restructuring decisions were tied to protected characteristics.

This broader context was central to the pretext analysis, explained the court. DAS presented evidence that the restructuring was substantial and that job eliminations affected employees of different ages and positions. The director, by contrast, did not explain why younger employees selected for termination were discharged if the company’s true motive was to target older workers or individuals with disabilities.

Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Because both sides relied on the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court assumed without deciding that the director established a prima facie case. DAS then met its burden of producing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination by pointing to the CEO’s assessment of business performance, his restructuring decisions, and his intent to modify reporting lines and eliminate certain roles.

Pretext. With the burden shifted back to the director, the court evaluated whether the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to disbelieve DAS’s explanation or find a discriminatory motive more likely. The court found no such evidence. It explained that merely labeling the reorganization as questionable, unwise, or poorly timed was insufficient because the inquiry does not permit courts to reevaluate business judgments. What mattered was whether the proffered reasons were honest and supported by the record.

HR testimony. The director’s attempt to rely on testimony from a departing human resources executive was unavailing. She resigned shortly before the restructuring began and testified that she was unaware of any imminent changes. The court found that her lack of knowledge did not undermine the company’s explanation, particularly because the terminations occurred after her departure and affected broad segments of the workforce.

Terminations undermined age bias claims. In addition, the court rejected the director’s argument that a jury could infer age discrimination from the employer’s decision not to promote him and from alleged plans involving younger employees. Even accepting his version of events, the court emphasized that those younger employees were themselves terminated within months. Because the director did not address these subsequent terminations in his argument or offer a reason why they were consistent with discriminatory motive, the claim of pretext was speculative.

The court stressed that it must consider the entire record, not only evidence favorable to the nonmovant. When viewed in full, the layoffs across age groups were consistent with the employer’s stated goal of restructuring and did not support an inference that age was a determinative factor. The director’s failure to reconcile these facts with his theory required entry of summary judgment.

Disability discrimination. As to the director’s disability claims, the court found that these failed for similar reasons. The court observed that he did not present direct evidence of discriminatory remarks or conduct. His reliance on the timing of events was insufficient in light of the companywide restructuring and the absence of evidence showing when the CEO learned of his diagnosis. The record showed only that the purchasing vice president learned of the diagnosis in late 2021 and that the CEO made the termination decision in mid-2022. Without evidence establishing that the CEO knew of the disability or that the timing reflected anything other than the restructuring, the theory could not survive summary judgment.

The director also pointed to an alleged comment in which the CEO asked the purchasing vice president whether the director was “the one with the shaking.” The court held that this statement, even if made, could not support an inference of discriminatory intent because the director acknowledged that he did not view such comments as derogatory, and the record contained no evidence that the remark reflected hostility or served as a basis for the termination decision.

The court concluded that the director’s disability claim was weaker than his age claim because none of the other terminated employees had disabilities, and the record lacked any negative comments about his medical condition.

Business decisions. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that none of the director’s arguments cast doubt on the legitimacy of the restructuring or the stated reasons for his termination. Relying on precedent emphasizing that courts do not second-guess business decisions, the court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that age or disability was the true reason for discharge. The director’s evidence amounted to a disagreement with the company’s business judgment, which is not a permissible basis for trial.

The court also distinguished the cases the director cited. In one case, the employer misrepresented facts to the EEOC regarding hiring decisions. In another, the employer terminated two employees who were both on medical leave and claimed restructuring as justification. The court concluded that neither authority aligned with the breadth of the layoffs in this case or the absence of evidence suggesting the employer concealed its motives.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-2041.

Judge: Neary, K.

Attorneys: Stephen Moniak (Appel, Yost & Zee) for Mark Anthony. Michael J. Crocenzi (Barley Snyder) for DAS Companies, Inc.

Companies: DAS Companies, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews