Background
Dr. Mark Lee, a sixty-two-year-old neurosurgeon, sued his former employer alleging age discrimination and retaliation after being removed as Chair of the Department of Neurosurgery. Lee claimed his removal was motivated by his age and in retaliation for complaints he made regarding discriminatory remarks by a university executive. The district court had granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims.
The court’s reasoning
The court agreed with the district court that Lee failed to prove age discrimination because the decisionmaker was older than Lee, his replacement was also in his sixties, and there were legitimate performance concerns. Regarding retaliation, the court found that the decision to remove Lee was underway before his complaints, so the removal itself was not retaliatory. However, the court found conflicting evidence regarding whether the decision to accelerate Lee’s removal timeline was made in response to his complaints, creating a factual dispute that precluded summary judgment.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the district court to determine if the acceleration of Dr. Lee’s removal was an act of unlawful retaliation, while the dismissal of his age discrimination and contract claims stands.