An Employer Told Two Different Stories About One Firing. How Do You Think It’s Going?

An employer told the EEOC one story to get a discrimination charge dismissed as too late. It told the court a different story to win summary judgment. The judge noticed.

---

TL;DR: A magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment on the EEOC’s age discrimination claim against a meat processing company, finding it gave inconsistent explanations for firing a 59-year-old sales manager: first telling the EEOC the sole reason was a 2019 relocation refusal, then telling the court it was really a 2021 reduction in force. A district judge still must adopt or reject the recommendation.

📄 Read the report and recommendation

---

One Story for the EEOC, Another for the Judge

The employee worked as a Senior Sales Account Manager for over a decade before her termination in January 2021, at age 59. In 2019, the employer launched an initiative to relocate her team to Virginia. She agreed to go, then the company tabled the relocation and never raised it again, confirmed in writing by her supervisor in that year’s performance review.

In January 2021, the employer ran a company-wide reduction in force. Her supervisor recommended including her, citing her Georgia location and salary, highest among her peer group. She was let go alongside five others on her team.

When the employee filed her EEOC charge, the employer told the agency the “sole reason” for her firing was her 2019 relocation refusal, and used that timeline to argue the charge was too late to count. Once litigation started, the employer dropped that story and argued instead that she’d been let go as part of the 2021 reduction, unrelated to 2019.

The magistrate judge called this shift “compelling evidence from which a jury could reasonably draw an inference of discrimination.” Other details hurt the employer’s case too: weeks before the termination, a 30-year-old employee in a comparable role was offered a transfer to the same Virginia office; when he turned it down, nobody offered that opening to the woman about to lose her job over her location. On the termination call, an HR representative told her, per her testimony, that the decision had nothing to do with anything she’d done.

The magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment, positioning the case to proceed toward trial. A district judge still has to adopt or reject the recommendation before it’s final.

Why a Recommendation, Not a Verdict, Still Belongs on Your Radar

This case turns less on age discrimination law and more on what happens when your EEOC position statement and litigation defense don’t match. Write down the real reason once, early, and stick to it, because a court doesn’t need a smoking gun to send a case to a jury. Two inconsistent stories, told to different audiences, can do that job.

Your EEOC Position Statement Isn’t a Throwaway Document

Whoever drafts that statement creates the company’s first sworn account of what happened, and it follows the case into litigation. Here, an HR employee who hadn’t spoken to the decisionmakers wrote it and later admitted she shouldn’t have used the words “sole reason.” That kind of loose drafting can become the exact contradiction a plaintiff’s lawyer builds a pretext argument around months later.

A Condition You Created Can’t Become the Reason You Fire Someone

The company told the employee in 2019 that her relocation was off the table. She stayed in Georgia because the company said that was fine. Two years later, the company fired her and pointed to her Georgia location as a reason. It never told her the issue was back on the table first. The same trap applies any time an employer waives a requirement and later penalizes the employee for the very thing it waived: an approved schedule, a granted accommodation, an extended deadline. If it’s fair game again, say so first.

An Internal Transfer Offered to One Person Should Be Offered to Comparable Others

If a similar opening comes up during a layoff and goes to a younger employee, be ready to explain why the older employee losing her job didn’t get the same shot. Silence reads as an answer.

If a jury hears both versions of the story, it may not need much help deciding which one to believe.