Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

A 50-year-old candidate applied for a job with the company. He claimed the hiring manager regarded him highly during a phone interview but changed attitudes when they met in person. According to the applicant, he repeatedly asked the manager several details about the job, but the manager refused to answer. After learning he didn’t get the job, he sued, believing his age was the real reason.

The employer said:

To fight the claim, the company pointed to the person who was hired: a 47-year-old woman. Given such a small  difference, how could the applicant’s age have played a factor?

Who won the case?

Answer: The applicant.

Why: It didn’t matter to the judge that the two candidates were only three years apart. There’s no set standard about how big an age difference there needs to be for a bias claim to be successful.

The real issue is whether or not the man’s age played a role in the decision that was made about him. And in this case, the company couldn’t prove it didn’t.

Cite: D’Cunha v. Eckerd Corp.

A 53-year-old woman applied for a job at a Starbucks store. During her interview, the hiring manager mentioned a concern with the availability listed on her application. The applicant then explained she would be flexible and could be available more frequently than the hours she listed.

Still, the woman wasn’t hired, because of the availability listed on the application, as well as “disrespectful body language” during the interview and her conduct afterward.

The applicant called the manager and visited the store to ask why she wasn’t hired. Each time, the manager gave the same answer — the availability listed on her application — without mentioning the other factors. She sued, claiming her age was the real reason.

Starbucks tried to get the case thrown out, but the judge wouldn’t buy it. Why not?

The main factor was the inconsistency in the manager’s explanations. She said one thing in court, and another to the applicant — which, according to the woman, shouldn’t have been a valid reason after she explained her flexibility in the interview.

Also, the court examined the store’s recent hiring records. Of the 19 employees hired by the manager, none were older than 30.

That gave the judge enough suspicion to send the case to a jury trial.

Cite: Boyajian v. Starbucks