For twenty years, Maynardworks for Natural Gas Wells, Inc, which employs more than five hundred persons in two states. Natural Gas Wells drills for and mines natural gas to sell and transport to refineries, which in turn pipes liquefied gas to other

Question

states. Maynard starts as an unskilled worker in the drilling fields. After a career of positive job evaluations and pay raises, Maynardis ultimately promoted to the position of chief of maintenance for a dozen wellheads. Five years later, a new employee, Oberto, is hired to oversee operations at all of the wellheads. Obertodemotes Maynard, who is now over the age of forty, and freezes his salary. Obertodemotes five other employees over the age of forty and places Maynard under the supervision of Pitt, who is twenty-three. Maynard overhears Pitt say, "We're going to have to do away with these oldmen.". Maynard quits and files a suit against Natural Gas Wellsfor employment discrimination. Should he prevail? Explain.

Answer 1

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits discrimination in em¬ployment on the basis of age against individuals forty years of age or older. For the ADEA to apply, an employer must have twenty or more employees, and interstate com¬merce must be affected by the employer's business activi¬ties.
Maynard worked at Natural Gas Wells, which employed more than twenty persons. Natural Gas Wells'sactivities affected inter¬state commerce—its operations spanned two states from which its products were shipped to and through other states. Maynard could likely establish the rest of a prima facie case. Because Maynard was not demoted due to any apparent job-performance prob¬lems, the fact that he was replaced by a person approximately half his age, coupled with Pitt's state¬ment about get¬ting rid of all the "oldmen," would be enough to shift the burden to Natural Gas Wellsto show that it was not discriminating on the basis of age. Ultimately, based on the facts in the question, Maynard would probably prevail.