Background: Stellar Performance Meets Vague Critiques
Jeff Kean joined Chili’s in 2011 and, by late 2017, had transformed a struggling Murfreesboro location into a designated training site for new managers. Peers affectionately (or maybe not so affectionately) dubbed him “Old Man” and “Grandpa” due to his old‐school style—comments that, while not overtly hostile, hinted at a workplace pivot toward youth culture. In November 2018, after a series of unsubstantiated employee complaints and without any formal warning or performance improvement plan, Kean was informed—during the first in‐person visit by his new Director of Operations—that he was being let go for failing to “live the Chili’s way”.
Procedural History: From Middle District to Sixth Circuit
Plaintiff Kean sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment for Brinker, crediting the vague “culture” rationale and relying heavily on a human‐resources report (the “TMR Report”) that recounted unverified complaints about Kean’s management style. Importantly, Brinker had destroyed or lost the original documents and emails from Kean’s personnel file, triggering a limited spoliation finding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).
Sixth Circuit’s Take: Spoliation and Summary Judgment Revisited
Spoliation Sanctions
The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that Brinker’s failure to preserve relevant documents was grossly negligent—but stopped short of harsher sanctions, since there was no evidence of intentional destruction. Crucially, the panel held the TMR Report insufficient to substitute for the destroyed records, vacating the monetary sanctions tied to that report and instructing the lower court to reconsider additional remedies.
Reversing Summary Judgment
Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden‐shifting framework, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Kean established a prima facie case:
-
Protected class: Over age 40.
-
Qualified: Stellar performance metrics.
-
Adverse action: Termination and replacement by a much younger manager.
-
Suggestive circumstances: Workplace remarks and a trend of replacing older employees.
Once Brinker proffered “culture” as its nondiscriminatory reason, Kean needed only to show that this rationale was pretextual—and the court found that the absence of objective “culture” data (like his top‐tier KPI and engagement scores) coupled with the destroyed records and pattern of youth‐focused hiring created genuine disputes for trial. The panel also rejected the “honest‐belief” defense, noting that without the original documentation, Brinker couldn’t prove it had made a reasonably informed decision.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Practitioners
-
Document, Document, Document: Employers must preserve personnel files and decisional memos, especially when “culture” or other subjective factors justify terminations. Failure to do so risks spoliation findings and weakened defenses.
-
Quantify Culture: If “culture” drives employment decisions, tie that concept to measurable metrics—employee surveys, turnover rates, guest feedback—to avoid the perception of a mere catchall excuse.
-
Beware Pretext Scrutiny: Even well‐intentioned managers face intense scrutiny when replacing older workers with younger ones. An absence of contemporaneous documentation can turn a legitimate business judgment into a suspect decision.
-
Reinforce Progressive Discipline: Consistent application of internal policies (e.g., coaching, warnings) helps demonstrate honest belief in performance‐based terminations.
Be Audit-Secure™!
