Age And Sex Discrimination Not Found For Terminated Employee

Specialty Lines	Management Conflict
Employment Related Practices	Organizational Changes

Nancy Lytle had worked for Howmet Corporation (Howmet) for 18 years in the human resources area when she was terminated. At the time of her hire, the employee manual carried a statement that no employee would be terminated without proper cause. It further contained a statement that the employee manual was not an employment contract.

Later the manual was revised to clarify that employment was at the employer's will, who reserved the right to terminate. However, Lytle was led to believe that the new disclaimer was for new hires only. It was only distributed to new employees when they were hired.

During her 18 years at Howmet, Lytle received favorable reviews and internal promotions. Her performance was exemplary. During a period of internal company adjustment, she had been assured that her position was secure, and she was well regarded. When her original director retired, a new director, Michael Malady (Malady), took his place. An apparent personality conflict occurred.

In one incident, Malady required female employees to wear dresses to a company picnic. When Lytle wore slacks, she received an unfavorable job performance evaluation.

As a result of the company adjustment, the organizational structure was changed, and jobs were realigned. Lytle, then 44 years of age, was terminated. The reason was stated as a reduction in the workforce due to a decrease in military contracts and a downward trend in the airline industry.

Upon Lytle's termination processing, her valuation indicated that she had been an employee in good standing and would be rehired should an appropriate position open. However, a similar position was created under the new organizational structure, and an employee from outside the company was hired. The new employee had comparable qualifications to Lytle. Lytle was not contacted or allowed rehire or access to the position. The new employee was 31 and offered a salary higher than Lytle's.

Lytle filed suit challenging the reduction in workforce reasoning and alleging age and sex discrimination. The trial court ruled against Lytle, but the appeal court ruled in her favor.

In a mixed decision of the Michigan Supreme Court with dissent, it was determined that the reduction in the workforce overall appeared valid. However, based upon the fact that Lytle was over 40, even though she had had very favorable reviews overall, she was replaced by a substantially younger person at a higher salary. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in favor of Lytle.

Nancy Lytle, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Michael Malady and Howmet Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing Michigan, No. 97-102515, July 31, 1997.