Howell v. Raymours Furniture Co.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
26 F. Supp. 3d 366 (2014)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Rebecca Howell (plaintiff) worked for Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. (Raymours) (defendant) for 12 years as a visual merchandiser, i.e., a person who styled the furniture showrooms. Howell then began working with store manager Lee Soto. Soto rarely spoke with Howell, did not look her in the eye, and walked off while Howell was talking. In contrast, Soto eagerly engaged and joked with a 28-year-old coworker, Jennifer Conklin. After a few months, Soto recommended that Raymours terminate Howell due to Howell’s supposedly poor work performance. Raymours then terminated Howell, who was over the age of 40. Although Conklin had no training or experience as a visual merchandiser, at Soto’s urging, Conklin was promoted to be Howell’s replacement. Howell filed an employment-discrimination claim against Raymours, alleging that she had been fired based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Raymours moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that Howell had been fired due to her poor work performance. In response, Howell submitted evidence that her work performance had been judged as exemplary before she began working with Soto and that Soto treated Howell and Conklin, a much younger coworker, differently.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mariani, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
