Knight v. Avon Products, Inc., 438 Mass. 413, 780 N.E. 2d 1255 (2003).

This case raised the issue whether a plaintiff in an age discrimination case under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B must prove that she was replaced by a “substantially younger” employee or merely by a younger employee.  In January 2003 decision the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, adopting the position urged by NELF, ruled that an employee must establish that she was replaced by a substantially younger employee to make a prima facie case of age discrimination.  Avon had hired Mary Shea Knight, then 44, as a district sales manager in its Northampton District.  After discovering that Knight had an interest in a store that sold competing cosmetic products, Avon fired Knight, replacing her with a woman twenty-eight months younger.  Knight sued Avon for age discrimination under c. 151B.  A Berkshire superior court jury found in her favor, awarding her front pay of $420,000, back pay of $225,000, and emotional distress damages of $150,000.  After the superior court denied Avon’s motion for a new trial, Avon appealed, arguing that in the absence of direct evidence of age discrimination, Knight must prove that she was replaced by a substantially younger employee.  NELF filed a brief in support of Avon arguing that the SJC should adopt the “substantially younger” test applied by the federal courts under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  A “substantially younger” requirement, NELF argued, is consistent with the role of a prima facie case in the three-stage analysis under c. 151B, which is to support a presumption of discrimination in the absence of direct proof.  When the replacement employee is insignificantly younger, that fact has no probative value and the presumption of discrimination is not warranted.  The SJC agreed, ruling that the substantially younger standard was appropriate and that a terminated employee replaced by someone less than five years younger did not, without other evidence, present a triable claim of age discrimination.