He proved age discrimination. The jury agreed. Then they awarded him $3. One dollar for back pay, one for front pay, and one for emotional distress. No, this wasn’t small claims court. But it might as well have been.
TL;DR: A Michigan jury found that a former HR Manager was fired because of his age. But when it came to damages, the jury gave him just three symbolic dollars. The plaintiff asked for a new trial. The judge said no, finding the jury’s decision entirely reasonable based on the evidence. For employers, it’s a reminder: a solid damages defense can go a long way—even when you lose on liability.
👉 Read the court’s decision
Discrimination? Yes. But not much to show for it.
The plaintiff had earned over $100,000 a year as an HR Manager for two facilities. Then a new CEO restructured the HR department—eliminating the role and replacing it with lower-paid generalists reporting to a newly hired HR leader overseeing more locations.
When the plaintiff asked about staying on as a generalist, the CEO allegedly told him he was “too high up” and “going to retire anyway.” The jury found that age played a role in the company’s decision not to retain him.
But here’s the catch: within seven months, the plaintiff found a new job starting at $70,000—and later earning $75,000.
He asked for nearly $1 million. The jury gave him $3.
After trial, the plaintiff asked the court to order a new one, arguing that no reasonable jury could award such low damages in an age discrimination case.
The judge disagreed.
He concluded that the jury could reasonably believe two things at once:
- The company discriminated by denying the plaintiff a lower-paid generalist job; and
- The plaintiff suffered no financial loss—because he found comparable or better-paying work shortly afterward.
That meant no real back pay, no front pay, and—apparently—not much in emotional distress either.
The jury’s message? Yes, what happened was wrong. No, it didn’t cost you much.
Employer Takeaways:
🗣️ What decision-makers say matters. A lot.
Comments like “too high up” or “going to retire anyway” can tip the scales toward liability—especially when they come from someone involved in the decision to terminate. Train managers to think before they speak.
🔍 Be ready to show that comparable jobs were available—and that the plaintiff didn’t try hard enough to find one.
When an employee sues for lost wages, it’s not just on them to show how much they lost. Employers can—and should—present evidence that similar jobs were out there and that the plaintiff didn’t make a reasonable effort to find one. In this case, the employee quickly landed a comparable role, which gutted his damages. But even if they don’t, employers who proactively develop evidence on job availability and mitigation efforts can dramatically limit exposure.
💸 Even a $3 verdict can come with six-figure legal bills.
Sure, the employer avoided a big damages award—but only after a jury trial, post-trial motions, and likely years of litigation. The legal fees, lost productivity, and stress of defending an age discrimination case like this can easily add up. That’s why early risk assessment, documentation, and thoughtful severance or settlement discussions matter.
📁 Back up your business decisions.
The employer had a documented restructuring plan, clear salary ranges, and a legitimate reason for reconfiguring the HR function. That gave the jury something to work with beyond the stray age-related comment.
Bottom line
Sometimes, a jury finds that an employer crossed the legal line—but decides it didn’t really cost the employee anything. This case is a reminder that how you execute a termination matters. So does what your managers say, what you document, and what the plaintiff does next.