Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
It wasn’t the cancer. It wasn’t the age. It was the failed business model.
A senior executive with prostate cancer helped land the company’s biggest contract ever and was promoted with a pay raise. Months later, he was fired. He believed his age and health had something to do with it—and brought claims of discrimination.
TL;DR: A senior executive with prostate cancer sued after being fired months after a promotion and raise, he alleged disability and age discrimination. But the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that dissatisfaction with his leadership of a biometric identity product—not his health or age—was the real reason for the termination.
A bold vision, a botched execution
A senior VP at a biometric security company pitched a new tech platform that would let stadium fans enter events and buy stuff with just a wave of their hand. He called it Trusted Fan. It sounded like the next big thing. The company agreed—at least at first—and even gave the exec budget and support to build it.
But as the months passed, enthusiasm turned into concern. The project wasn’t moving, the revenue projections were unrealistic, and a business model review found major red flags. Eventually, the company lost confidence in his leadership and let him go.
Health questions and performance reviews
The executive, who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, pointed to messages from the CEO asking about his treatments and how he was feeling. He also cited several age-related remarks as signs of bias: the CEO once asked why he still wanted to do the “heavy lifting” and work “so hard” at his age; when offering the executive a new role, the CEO assured him it was not “putting [him] out to pasture.” Another executive suggested the executive remain long enough to pass key client relationships to younger staff. And the executive noted internal conversations about the company’s aging workforce and a push to bring in younger talent.
So, was the termination really about poor performance—or something more?
Here’s what the Sixth Circuit said:
— Disability discrimination? No. Even assuming the exec made a prima facie case, the company gave a legitimate reason for the termination—his poor handling of the Trusted Fan rollout. He failed to develop a workable business model, couldn’t answer basic questions about the project, and lacked a plan or timeline. The court said the company didn’t need to be right—it just needed to honestly believe he was underperforming. And it did.
— Age discrimination? Still no. The age-related comments were ambiguous, isolated, and made months before the termination. Plus, they came from someone who promoted the exec and backed his raise. Without more, that wasn’t enough to prove age was the but-for cause of the firing.
The bottom line for employers
📅 You can fire a high-level exec—even one with a disability or nearing retirement—if the reason is performance-based and supported by specific, contemporaneous facts. Courts give employers the benefit of the doubt when their rationale is credible, consistent, and backed by documentation. This is especially true in leadership roles where expectations evolve rapidly.
⚠️ Stray remarks about age or health can show up in litigation—but courts give them little weight if they’re vague, isolated, or unrelated to the decision-maker or the timing of the adverse action. Still, they’re avoidable distractions. Train decision-makers to speak carefully and document performance-based concerns clearly.
💡 Finally, while a recent positive performance review can cast doubt on a termination, it’s not a silver bullet—especially when the termination is based on later, well-documented performance issues. Courts look at whether the employer had a consistent, evidence-based rationale at the time of the firing, even if earlier reviews were favorable.
Conclusion
Discrimination claims can follow even when performance issues appear legitimate—especially when health or age is part of the conversation. But this case is a reminder that courts want more than suspicion and proximity. They want proof. And here, the record showed consistent concern about performance, not bias. That made all the difference.
For employers, the lesson is clear: document evolving performance concerns, be consistent in your messaging, and avoid stray remarks that—even if benign—can be misconstrued and weaponized in litigation.