FOLLOW US

A Louisiana federal judge has refused to grant a summary judgment to DuPont in the case brought by two former employees who allege age bias led to their firings. The judge decided that a jury should determine whether age discrimination or safety violations were the true reasons behind the terminations of Chad St. Pierre and Patrick Wright, who are in their 40s and 50s.

Judge's Decision on Summary Judgment

U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson denied the motion for summary judgment from DuPont Specialty Products USA LLC in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act suit filed by St. Pierre and Wright. DuPont contended that age discrimination was not a factor in its decision, arguing instead that the employees were dismissed for violating safety protocols by cutting locks on breaker boxes at the LaPlace, Louisiana, facility.

However, St. Pierre and Wright, both long-term employees with 25 years at the company, claim the investigation into their actions was biased and that younger workers replaced them. While Judge Jackson found many of the plaintiffs' arguments unconvincing, he noted that questions remain about whether Mark Schorr, the reliability and maintenance manager who led the investigation, was motivated by bias.

DuPont Workers' Age Bias Suit Headed to Trial : Key Issues and Evidence

"Plaintiffs' version of events is disputed, of course, and DuPont will have ample opportunity to challenge it at trial," Judge Jackson stated. "But at this stage, the court finds that the disputed evidence regarding Schorr's role gives rise to an inference of pretext."

St. Pierre, who was 47 when terminated in October 2020, and Wright, who was 59, began working for DuPont in 1995. According to their October 2022 complaint, St. Pierre cut several locks in violation of DuPont's "life-saving rules" in September 2020. Wright witnessed the act and both argued that cutting the locks was necessary due to urgent machinery repairs and that following protocol was not feasible at the time.

The plaintiffs also claimed they received approval from their supervisor to cut the locks and that Schorr and other employees were aware of their actions. However, Schorr denied any involvement and later led the investigation that resulted in their terminations.

Disputed Role of Schorr

St. Pierre and Wright argued that Schorr's investigation was a cover for age discrimination, asserting that he was aware and even participated in the decision to cut the locks. Schorr allegedly rode in a golf cart with St. Pierre as he cut the locks, supporting the former employees' claim that the investigation was pretextual.

DuPont argued that Schorr was not the ultimate decisionmaker in the firings. However, Judge Jackson highlighted that the evidence suggested Schorr's input was significant. "Schorr led the investigation, collected evidence, and presented that evidence to the plant manager, recommending termination," Judge Jackson said. "It is reasonable to infer from this information that termination would not have occurred but for Schorr's efforts."

DuPont Workers' Age Bias Suit Headed to Trial : Dismissed Arguments

Aside from the age bias claim, Judge Jackson dismissed other arguments presented by St. Pierre and Wright. These included claims of ageist comments from a supervisor and instances where younger workers violated similar rules without being fired. Judge Jackson ruled that these arguments failed to demonstrate that the plant manager, who made the termination decisions, was aware of these incidents.

"This nexus is essential to showing pretext through disparate treatment, and its absence dooms plaintiffs' argument," Judge Jackson said.

Representation

St. Pierre and Wright are represented by J. Arthur Smith III, Joseph A. Smith IV of Smith Law Firm, and Michael J. Jefferson. DuPont is represented by Monique M. Weiner and Holly Y. Pailet of Kuchler Polk Weiner LLC.