Pamela Reeves v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Pamela Reeves v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

What Happened

Pamela Reeves claimed that Costco fired her because of her age, an illegal form of discrimination. The company said it terminated her for taking unpaid chips from the store—a policy violation—not because of her age.

What the Court Decided

The Iowa Court of Appeals sided with Costco. A jury had already rejected Reeves's age discrimination claim, and the appeals court upheld that verdict. The court also prevented Reeves from adding a new claim about breach of contract to her case.

Why This Matters for Workers

This ruling shows that employers can fire workers for rule violations even if an employee believes age played a role. To win a discrimination case, workers generally must prove the actual reason for termination was their age—not a policy breach. Simply suspecting age discrimination isn't enough. Workers facing termination should carefully document what rule they allegedly violated and gather evidence showing age was the real reason for their firing.