Did I ever tell you about that grocery worker fired for buying beer 🍺 for her underage grandson who then claimed age discrimination?😱

Last night, I read a First Circuit decision about an employee at a grocery store who violated company policy by buying beer for her underage grandson, except she claimed age discrimination.

Spoiler alert: she lost.

Stick around for some HR101: Clear policies and consistent enforcement matter.

The Incident

The employee had been with the company for years, racked up positive performance reviews, and was generally a model worker—until she decided to buy beer for her 19-year-old grandson, a co-worker. The company had a strict policy prohibiting employees from selling or providing alcohol to underage individuals. When management found out, they investigated and terminated her for breaking the rules. Before doing so, however, they offered her the option to retire to preserve her record—an offer she declined.

Her “It’s Not Me, It’s You” Argument

Rather than take responsibility, she claimed her firing was just a cover for age discrimination. But why?

• Model Employee: She had glowing reviews and even got a recent raise. So how could one mistake get her fired?
• They asked me to “retire.” The employee claimed her manager “attempted to coerce” her into retiring, which is something that companies typically do with older workers.
• Inconsistent Punishment: She argued that younger employees might have gotten away with similar offenses, pointing to one case where an employee received only a warning for selling alcohol to a minor.
• A smoking … spreadsheet? In discovery, the defendant produced a spreadsheet showing that, for ten years before the plaintiff’s manager began supervising her, no employee over the age of forty was separated from the company. But after the manager’s promotion, seven employees over forty “were suddenly separated from employment.”

Why That Argument Flopped

1. The Company Had a Solid Reason to Fire Her. The policy was clear: No giving booze to minors. She did it anyway. She even admitted it. Plus, the company followed normal procedures, investigated the incident, and made a decision based on the facts—not bias.
2. Rules Were Applied Consistently (With Key Differences). The one employee she pointed to as receiving lighter discipline had immediately self-reported the sale, whereas she was confronted by management. The court found this distinction relevant.
3. No Signs of Age Discrimination. The fact that she had positive performance reviews before the incident actually hurt her case—it showed she wasn’t being pushed out due to her age. And the court agreed with the defendant that the “spreadsheet has no conceivable relevance” to age discrimination.

To avoid legal drama, stick to clear policies, enforce them consistently, investigate infractions, and document everything. Otherwise, you might find yourself in a courtroom in the awkward position of having to explain why terminating grandma for a beer run wasn’t a pretext for age discrimination.