Tommy Sharp v. Aker Plant Services Group, Inc
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16518
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sharp, age 52, was terminated at the Louisville DuPont site for Aker; plaintiff alleges age discrimination under Kentucky CRA.
- Supervisor Mike Hudson influenced layoff decisions by ranking employees and recommending who to fire; Hudson was not the ultimate decision maker.
- Aker relied on Hudson’s forced rankings and recommendation, with executives performing a minimal, allegedly independent review.
- Hudson discussed grooming Kirkpatrick (age 44) as Larry Ash’s replacement, framed as a succession plan and not due to performance alone.
- Sharp’s 2006–2008 evaluations show mixed performance; Kirkpatrick received higher ratings, and Sharp’s 2008 score was notably lower.
- Plaintiff recorded a conversation where Hudson stated the reason for firing was to hire younger workers, suggesting age as a factor; Aker disputes the linkage, arguing business rationale only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisor bias makes employer liable | Sharp argues Hudson’s age bias was the true cause | Aker argues Hudson wasn’t a decision maker; remarks were non-actionable | Yes; Hudson’s bias implicated Aker’s decision regardless of formality of decision making. |
| Whether Hudson’s remarks constitute direct evidence | Remarks show age was the motivating factor | Remarks were stray or improperly related to decision | Yes; remarks were specific, timely, and tied to the hiring/layoff decision. |
| Whether the remarks were a proxy for a legitimate business concern | Longevity proxy for age was used as a rationale | Business rationale distinct from age | No; remarks tied to age as the controlling factor and were not analytically distinct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (employer liable for supervisor’s biased act if proximate cause of action remains after independent review)
- Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am., Inc., 686 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012) (discriminatory information flow and supervisor influence)
- Romans v. Mich. Dep’t of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826 (6th Cir. 2012) (principle of biased report remaining causal factor when not fully independent)
- Woythal v. Tex-Tenn Corp., 112 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes age-based inquiries from analytical distinctions in Hazen Paper)