Yurasek v. Crossmark, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 3d 876

Plaintiff Joseph Yurasek, a long‑time account executive (AE) at Crossmark, was hired via acquisition in 2003 and worked on the Kroger team; he was over 60 at the time of disputed events.
From 2004–2011 Yurasek received generally positive annual reviews; in June 2011 he received a “Consistently Exceeds” evaluation.
Beginning in early 2012 several client complaints (Chobani voicemail incident, Old Orchard complaints, and a Maxi‑Canada concern about a “defensive edge”) led to a final written counseling form in February 2012 and ongoing client pressure to change AEs.
In June 2012 clients reiterated requests for AE changes; Old Orchard and Maxi‑Canada accounts were reassigned and, after discussion among supervisors, Crossmark terminated Yurasek on September 6, 2012.
Yurasek alleges age discrimination (ADEA and Ohio Rev. Code ch. 4112) and retaliation for complaining to Crossmark’s president about age bias; Crossmark moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination (ADEA/Ohio law) — Was termination motivated by age?	Yurasek points to ageist remarks by managers, timing of positive review/raise despite earlier client complaints, and disputed client demands as evidence of pretext.	Crossmark says termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: repeated client dissatisfaction and loss of client trust.	Denied summary judgment for defendant as to discrimination; factual disputes (comments, timing, client requests) could support jury inference of pretext.
Retaliation — Was Yurasek fired for complaining to company president about age bias?	Yurasek contends he complained in June 2011 to the president and was later fired in retaliation.	Crossmark argues decision‑makers (Rowe, Johnson) were unaware of that protected complaint and the president did not influence the termination.	Granted summary judgment for defendant on retaliation; plaintiff failed to show decision‑makers knew of protected activity or a causal connection.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (court reviews summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens and production)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial employment discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (using prima facie evidence and inferences to show pretext)
Blizzard v. Marion Technical College, 698 F.3d 275 (retaliation causation/timing)
White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (methods to demonstrate pretext)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (relevance of remarks by non‑ultimate decisionmakers to infer bias)
Polk v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 876 F.2d 527 (temporal proximity and evidence of decisionmaker knowledge in retaliation claims)