Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · Contracts

Contractsemployment at willage discriminationevidencetrial court discretionage discriminationpretextdetermining factor

Facts

Murphy worked for American Home for more than 22 years and was discharged in April 1980, when he was over 59, for stated "Lack of adaptability." At trial on his age discrimination claim, Murphy testified that Robert Blount repeatedly made age-related remarks, including that he did not want "old guys" in certain jobs and that if Murphy were ten years younger he could get rid of him. Murphy also sought to present testimony from retired employee Thomas Lalicki that Blount told him he was reserving a department for his "elite young core" and would not transfer older employees there. The trial court allowed Lalicki to testify only about remarks made at a 1979 retirement party and excluded the rest of his proposed testimony.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by limiting Lalicki's testimony about Blount's discriminatory remarks toward older employees in Murphy's age discrimination trial? More specifically, was that testimony sufficiently relevant and probative of Blount's state of mind that excluding it denied Murphy a fair trial?

Rule

In an age discrimination case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that age was the determining factor and that, but for the employer's intent to discriminate on the basis of age, the plaintiff would not have been fired. Because employers often conceal discriminatory motives, the plaintiff may prove that the employer's stated reason was pretextual, and relevant evidence of discriminatory treatment or remarks concerning other employees is highly probative of the employer's actual state of mind; a trial court abuses its discretion when it excludes such highly relevant evidence where its probative value is not outweighed by prejudice under the particular circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ellen Park, age 62, was fired from her accounting job at Lakefront Nutritional Labs in Chicago after her supervisor cited "poor adaptability to new procedures." Ellen proves she was over 60 and that younger employees remained employed, but she offers no evidence undermining the stated reason and no evidence of age-related remarks or conduct.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest assessment of Ellen's case?

Explanation. The majority states that in an age discrimination case the plaintiff bears the burden of proving age was the determining factor and that, but for the employer's intent to discriminate on the basis of age, the plaintiff would not have been fired. Merely showing older status and discharge is not enough. The opinion also explains that plaintiffs often meet this burden by proving the employer's stated reason is pretextual, but Ellen has offered no such proof. (Derived from Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. (n.d.).)