SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied in part Dun & Bradstreet’s motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by former sales specialist Dana Sanderson, ruling that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the company’s “go-to-market” reorganization was a pretext for unlawful age-based termination.
Sanderson, who was 63 when he was terminated in February 2023, alleged that Dun & Bradstreet unlawfully ended his employment based on his age in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. He had worked for the company in various sales roles from 2005 to 2009 and again from 2011 or 2012 until his termination.
The company argued that the termination was part of a business reorganization that eliminated the Specialist role and created new positions focused on new business sales. Dun & Bradstreet asserted that Sanderson was not selected for the new roles because he lacked the necessary new-business sales skills and product-specific expertise.
Tigar found that while the reorganization was a legitimate business reason, the evidence presented by Sanderson created a triable issue as to whether the position was truly eliminated or merely renamed.
The court noted that Sanderson was one of only two people on his team to exceed 100% of his sales targets for 2022, hitting 114% of his goal. Despite this performance, he was one of nine Specialists terminated, while 78 others were assigned new roles.
Sanderson was one of six Specialists over the age of 60; two were terminated. The other Specialists retained were 12 to 24 years younger than Sanderson.
Tigar pointed to the hiring of a replacement who was 25 years younger than Sanderson and was given the same account assignment. The judge noted that an average age difference of ten years or more between a plaintiff and their replacement can be presumptively substantial.
The court also considered testimony that the new role, New Business Sales Executive, performed similar functions to the old Specialist role, despite a change in compensation structure that removed commissions on contract renewals.
“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Sanderson, as the Court must on this motion, the Court cannot conclude that no reasonable juror could find for Sanderson on his age discrimination claim,” Tigar wrote.
Dun & Bradstreet was granted summary judgment on Sanderson’s claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The court found that Sanderson’s email to an HR representative, in which he expressed shock and skepticism about his termination, did not constitute a formal complaint of age discrimination that would trigger the company’s duty to investigate.
Sanderson’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy also survived summary judgment because it is dependent on the success of his FEHA age discrimination claim.
The case is set to proceed to trial.