![]() |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Charles
Ross represented Philip Haun in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi in an action against Haun’s
employer, Ideal Industries, Inc., for violation of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA), in addition to a state law claim against his
supervisor at Ideal, Don Ambrose, for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. In 1992, Ideal combined two of its divisions, resulting in four
people being fired, one of which was Haun. Furthermore, three of the four
employees that were fired were over the age of 40, while the one employee
under 40 received another job with the company. After he was told that
he was being fired, Haun learned of a sales position with Ideal in Virginia
that was soon to be available. When Haun inquired about the job, he was
told that the position was being eliminated; however, the position was
later awarded to a twenty-six-year-old individual with no prior sales
experience. Prior to being fired but after being told by Ambrose during
his annual performance review that there were problems with his performance
but that he was not on probation, Haun received his Performance Appraisal
and Development (PAD), which showed that he had been on probation for
the past three months. Haun requested that the probationary language be
removed from his PAD and that all references to the probation be removed
from his personnel file; however, it was not until after the decision
to fire Haun had been made that the corrected PAD was put in Haun’s
file and the probationary language remained in the file as of the date
of trial. At trial, Mr. Ross was successful in convincing the jury that
Ideal willfully violated the ADEA, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the jury’s verdict on appeal. However, the district court
granted judgment as a matter of law to Ideal on Haun’s intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim against Ambrose, which the Fifth
Circuit also affirmed.
|
|
||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||