No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The University of Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff, a 68-year-old tenured professor terminated in a reduction in force, failed to establish a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination because he could not demonstrate that circumstances supported an inference of discrimination beyond the RIF itself.
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.
Feerasta v. University of Akron: Summary
What Happened
A 68-year-old tenured professor at the University of Akron was laid off in summer 2020 as part of a larger workforce reduction affecting 96 faculty members. The professor had recently returned from medical leave following heart surgery. He sued the university, claiming he was fired because of his age and disability status, rather than for legitimate business reasons.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in favor of the University of Akron. The judge found that the professor failed to prove age or disability discrimination. Simply being older or having a disability—and being terminated during a reduction in force—wasn't enough evidence of illegal discrimination. The professor would have needed additional proof that the university treated him differently than similarly situated younger employees or non-disabled workers.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers facing layoffs cannot automatically win discrimination claims based solely on their age or health status. To successfully challenge a termination, workers must gather concrete evidence showing they were treated unfairly compared to other employees in similar situations. Documentation, witness statements, and comparative evidence become critical in proving discrimination.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
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.