Bookmark and Share
December 27, 2011
Replaced by Robotics, or by a Younger Employee?

An Alabama furniture employee was responsible for researching new products, creating specifications, selecting products from in-house designers, merchandising products, and going overseas to look at products. He also interacted with customers, salespeople, and designers. At some point, when he was over 40, he was fired. Claiming a younger employee had taken on his job, he sued.

For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.   Download Now

What happened. The unfortunate product developer, “Gordon,” worked for International Furniture Marketing and alleged he’d been replaced by the younger “Evans.” Gordon sued for violation of his rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. In federal district court, a judge heard International Furniture’s argument that Gordon had actually been replaced with, as the appellate opinion in this case described it, “a web-based computer program called Design Net, which allows salespeople to communicate directly with designers about what products are needed and allows customers to provide feedback directly to salespeople and designers.”

Evans, who had been with the company for 8 years before Gordon was let go, has only one task similar to one that Gordon had: He travels overseas to check on products. But he did that before Gordon was eliminated. So the judge issued summary judgment to International Furniture. Gordon appealed to the 11th Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.

What the court said. Appellate judges reviewed the standard for summary judgment, finding that “the court shall grant [such judgment] if the movant [in this case, the defendant] shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” It seemed inarguable that Gordon had effectively been automated out of a job—replaced with robotics. So again, judges ruled that he didn’t have a case. Gortemoller v. International Furniture Marketing, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, No. 10-15689 (2011).

Point to remember: One employment law attorney remarked that “robotics may have an adverse effect on the employment rate of persons who perform nonrepetitive tasks and exercise judgment.” Automation has slowly but surely eliminated many manufacturing jobs, beginning with those that were the most repetitious and called for the least judgment. But programs like Design Net are the inevitable result of ever-developing technology. And in these times when many organizations communicate with customers regarding products or services using such media as blogs, Twitter, or Facebook, direct feedback is increasingly essential.


Twitter  Facebook  Linked In
Follow Us
WEBARRAY7
Copyright � 2012 Business & Legal Resources. All rights reserved. 800-727-5257
This document was published on http://HR.BLR.com
Document URL: http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Age-Discrimination/Replaced-by-Robotics-or-by-a-Younger-Employee/