Ms. Conrad received several “performance reports” rating her skills as “effective,” and “favorable.” Then, in 1987, Conrad began to receive less favorable performance evaluations. According to her supervisor at the time, her attitude, performance and judgment were slipping. In 1988, due to continued deterioration of Conrad’s performance, she was demoted to “loan officer,” although her salary was not decreased.

After Conrad’s demotion, she did not return to work, although she was not fired and claimed that she had not resigned. Conrad indicated that her doctor did not want her to return to work as she had suffered a “complete shutdown” following her demotion.

Conrad then sued the Credit Union alleging that she had been con- structively discharged due to her age, among other things. The manager of Chaco was overheard referring to the older female employees as “old broads” who needed to be “put out to pasture.” Other employees indicated that the older employees were not desirable because they were not adaptable to computers, were resistant to change, and were less efficient than younger employees. The trial court ruled in favor of the Credit Union.

On appeal, however, the appellate court ruled that the trial court had improperly excluded some evidence of statements made by Chaco management as to the older employees. Jean Conrad v. Chaco Credit Union, (U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Cir., No. 90-3880).

Author: Charles R. Harroun, Attorney at Law