The employer said it was trying to keep a struggling manager employed. He saw an age-based effort to push him out, but the court found that his retirement was still his choice.

TL;DR: A federal appeals court upheld the employer’s win before trial on a 60-year-old employee’s claim of forced retirement because of age. His constructive-discharge theory failed: the changes did not make quitting his only reasonable option, and the evidence showed efforts to keep him employed.

📄 Read the court’s opinion

One manager, two versions of his performance

An administrative manager at a fire department had years of favorable reviews before coworkers criticized his leadership and handling of budgets, maintenance, and IT. Those concerns eventually produced a job redesign, retirement, and an age-discrimination lawsuit that the employer won.

The manager supervised two administrative assistants. Both criticized his management, and his supervisor included concerns in a review that still rated him successful.

The supervisor, also his friend, prepared a harsher alternate review. He kept that version out of the HR approval process to preserve the manager’s merit increase, but shared it with the fire chief.

Management removed supervisory duties and rated him unsatisfactory. Rather than use a performance improvement plan, it redesigned his position with reduced responsibilities and a pay decrease of almost $12,000.

He believed management was pushing him out because of age

Management requested his input. The employee proposed minimal changes and said he felt pushed out. His supervisor responded bluntly that he had not succeeded and would not succeed with such limited changes. HR later rejected more substantial proposals as untimely.

The labor agreement required at least a 40% change in duties for reclassification. The chief could not confirm that threshold was met. Required submissions to the union president and city council were also missing.

The employee retired at 60. A 50-year-old replaced him in a revised role.

He believed the criticism and downgrade reflected age bias and challenged management’s practices. But the appeals court resolved his federal age-discrimination claim under the ADEA before deciding whether age motivated the changes.

An unwelcome change did not establish a forced resignation

His claim depended on constructive discharge: working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would see quitting as the only plausible option. Establishing a forced resignation would address whether he was effectively fired; he would still need to establish age discrimination.

The Eighth Circuit found that the criticism, lost duties, and prospective pay reduction did not meet that high standard here. Coworker complaints supplied a factual basis for management’s actions.

The evidence also failed to show an intent to force retirement or that retirement was reasonably foreseeable. The supervisor had protected his raise; management redesigned his job instead of terminating him and sought his input. Those actions supported an effort to preserve employment.

Under the Eighth Circuit’s constructive-discharge rule, he also needed to give management a reasonable chance to address his perceived age discrimination before quitting. Saying he felt pushed out had not communicated that concern.

Employers considering a reduced role can clarify expectations and invite feedback before an employee leaves.

Three lessons for performance-related job changes

1. Retention efforts need a workable offer

A redesigned job can help show an effort to retain someone. Explain the duties, compensation, and expectations, and give the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond.

2. Performance records should tell a consistent story

If an employee needs substantial improvement, the official review should explain why. Keeping serious criticism outside the normal process can leave HR, management, and the employee working from different understandings of the performance problem.

3. Employee input can improve a revised role

Employers can make job changes without putting every detail up for negotiation. When employee feedback could help, explain what remains open for discussion, set a deadline, and consider the suggestions before finalizing those details.

The employer won, but two versions of a performance review and missed procedural steps made the story harder to explain. A clearer process could have made for a cleaner defense.