Facts

Claimant Chris Dreher was hired as president of respondent Burkert Contromatic Corp., a California based corporation, at the age of 57. The respondent hired the claimant during a time of upheaval at the company. Claimant and respondent allegedly negotiated a one-year contract that would automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless either party opted not to renew within a specified time frame.

The claimant was doing reasonably well during the first six months. At the sixth month point, the claimant complained to his supervisor about a remark made at an international sales meeting by an employee of an affiliated company, which claimant believed to be discriminatory. Within the next two months, communications and support from claimant's supervisor dropped off and he was informed in a brief conversation by phone that his contract was not going to be renewed, that the president of a Burkert-affiliated company would be his successor (it was disputed as to whether or not the successor was described as "young and energetic"), and claimant would be getting his contractual, written 60-day notice that his contract would not be renewed. However, the claimant's contract was renewed and he was kept on for another two years for a total of three years.

In the meantime, the company selected and groomed two individuals in their 40s to succeed claimant. The claimant also applied for another position in the organization for which he claimed he was well qualified and was not hired. (Respondent claimed that the person who worked in that position at the time remained in that position and no other individual was hired for that job). Claimant claimed he was rejected for the position without interview.

CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The claimant contended that the respondent violated California's Fair Employment and Housing Act by terminating him in retaliation for complaining about the discriminatory remark at the sales meeting, and because of his age. He also contended that criticisms of his performance were trivial and a pretext for the unlawful motives.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
As to the age discrimination claim, the respondent contended that the "same individual" who hired the claimant at age 57 also made the decision not to renew his contract. In defense of the retaliation claim, the respondent contended that claimant’s supervisor had begun discussions with claimant’s successor before the allegedly discriminatory remark was made because claimant had indicated during the interview process that he only planned to work for several years, and that in any event, two and a half years had passed between the protected act of complaining about the allegedly discriminatory remark and the nonrenewal of his contract. The respondent also contended that the claimant was terminated for legitimate performance related reasons.

Result

Decision for claimant on retaliation claim; decision for respondent on age discrimination claim. $229,800 in economic damages; $108,368 in statutory attorney fees.

Other Information

The claimant's motion for statutory attorney fees was granted.