The ADEA prohibits an employer from firing an employee for being old. However, in the wake of the…

The ADEA prohibits an employer from firing
an employee for being old. However, in the wake of the Gross decision, can an
employee be fired for being old and ugly? Though the question may sound
frivolous, an Oklahoma property management company made precisely this argument
in a 2013 age discrimination case. Recall that Gross states that the ADEA does
not authorize mixedmotive age discrimination claims; age must be the deciding
(but for) cause of the adverse employment action. Toni Strength, a
53-year-old employee of Kanbar Property Management, was terminated by Kanbar
CEO Sukhi Ghuman

The ADEA prohibits an employer from firing
an employee for being old. However, in the wake of the Gross decision, can an
employee be fired for being old and ugly? Though the question may sound
frivolous, an Oklahoma property management company made precisely this argument
in a 2013 age discrimination case. Recall that Gross states that the ADEA does
not authorize mixedmotive age discrimination claims; age must be the deciding
(but for) cause of the adverse employment action. Toni Strength, a
53-year-old employee of Kanbar Property Management, was terminated by Kanbar
CEO Sukhi Ghuman in 2010. Though Strength was told that her position was being
eliminated, this was not true. The EEOC maintains that Strength was fired as a
result of her age and filed suit against Kanbar on her behalf. Key to the
EEOCs case was testimony from several individuals who alleged that Ghuman said
that he had fired Strength because she was older and he did not believe she
had the ability to meet potential tenants and entertain existing clients after
work; he wanted someone younger and prettier for the position; and she was
old and ugly, adding who would want to lease from her? During summary
judgment proceedings, Kanbar argued that these statements do not demonstrate
that age was the page 618 deciding cause of Ghumans actions. Rather, they
exhibit mixed motives: ageism and lookism. Although ageist motives are
prohibited by the ADEA, lookism is not an actionable charge. Therefore,
Kanbar proposed, Ghumans alleged statements do not prevent summary judgment in
the companys favor. Has Kanbar presented a sufficient case that the EEOCs age
discrimination claim should not survive summary judgment [E.E.O.C. v. Kanbar
Prop. Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 12-CV-00422-JED-TLW, 2013 WL 4512671 (N.D. Okla. Aug.
23, 2013)]?