Wilson v. Blue Sky Casino, LLC
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
2017 WL 6729946 (2017)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Barry Wilson (plaintiff) worked for French Lick Resort and Casino (French Lick) (defendant) as a table-games floor supervisor. In June 2015, Wilson and others applied for promotion to table-games shift manager. Wilson was 55 years old, and the other applicants ranged in age from 35 to 61. After interviewing the applicants, table-games department head Mike Miller wanted to promote 55-year-old Michael Voegerl. However, Voegerl was dating one of the table-games dealers and would have become the dealer’s supervisor. French Lick’s human-resources director advised Miller that French Lick’s parent company had an antinepotism policy prohibiting employees from supervising family members or romantic partners. The antinepotism policy apparently had not been consistently enforced. However, Miller determined that the policy disqualified Voegerl, Wilson (whose wife was a table-games dealer), and other applicants. Miller ultimately promoted the 35-year-old, who was the only applicant without a nepotism-based conflict. Wilson sued French Lick, alleging that French Lick had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Wilson asserted that the antinepotism policy was merely pretext for what was actually an age-based decision. However, Wilson presented no evidence that Miller or the human-resources director were enforcing the antinepotism policy based on discriminatory animus or on anything other than the honest belief that the policy prohibited promoting certain employees. French Lick moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.