Feerasta v. Univ. of Akron

Unknown CourtJanuary 25, 2022

Defendant WinUniversity of Akron

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Sheeran
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: summary judgment
State: Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Outcome

University's motion for summary judgment was granted. Court found that the university conducted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reduction in force based on economic necessity, and plaintiff failed to establish that age or disability was a factor in the termination decision.

Excerpt

Age discrimination disability discrimination. Plaintiff filed an action alleging age discrimination and disability discrimination. Defendant formerly employed plaintiff as a tenured professor. Plaintiff is a 68-year-old-man. During the spring of 2020, plaintiff went on medical leave to undergo cardiac surgery. In the summer of 2020, defendant notified plaintiff that he was one of 96 full-time faculty members whose employment was terminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Defendant motioned for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that the RIF was discriminatory. In the context of an RIF, plaintiffs must proffer direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence that establishes age was a factor in their termination. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisors' inquiries into whether he might soon retire and the fact that only 15% of terminated employees were under the age of 40 constituted evidence of defendant's discriminatory intent. The court found that defendant's university-wide RIF was conducted out of economic necessity, which constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for plaintiff's termination. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in defendant's favor.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A 68-year-old tenured professor at the University of Akron sued the school for age and disability discrimination after being fired. The professor had taken medical leave in spring 2020 for heart surgery. That summer, the university told him he was one of 96 full-time faculty members being laid off as part of a "reduction in force" (RIF) - essentially budget cuts that eliminated multiple positions. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of the University of Akron, dismissing the professor's discrimination claims. The court found that the university had legitimate business reasons for the layoffs and that the professor could not prove his age or medical condition were factors in his termination. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows how difficult it can be to win discrimination lawsuits when employers have documented business reasons for layoffs. Even if you're in a protected class (like being over 40 or having a disability), you must prove the employer's stated reason was fake and that discrimination was the real motive. Large-scale layoffs can provide legal cover for employers, making it harder to prove individual targeting. Workers facing similar situations should document everything and consult employment attorneys early.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Discrimination cases Wrongful Termination cases

Similar Rulings

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Read Full Opinion More University of Akron Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.