New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Knight v. Avon Products, Inc. 

2/26/2003

 
Evidence in Age Discrimination Cases under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B

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.  Avon hired Mary Shea Knight, then 44, as a district sales manager  Two years later Avon discovered that Knight had an interest in a store that sold competing cosmetic products and fired her.  Avon replaced Knight 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.  The Supreme Judicial Court granted Avon’s motion for direct appellate review, and solicited amicus briefs.  

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 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. NELF demonstrated that federal circuit courts require a replacement employee to be five to ten years younger to sustain a prima facie case under the ADEA. While acknowledging that the SJC does not always elect to follow federal law, NELF argued that that the rationale underlying the federal cases is equally applicable to cases under c. 151B.  NELF argued that such a ruling does not deprive insignificantly older employees the opportunity to demonstrate that they were, in fact, discriminated against on the basis of their age.  Rather, such a ruling removes the presumption in favor of the employee and against the employer in such cases, leveling the playing field and requiring the employee to produce either direct evidence of discrimination or evidence of disparate treatment.  

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.


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001