holding that a choice between a severance benefit and possibly retaining employment was not a “take-it-or-leave-it situation” and that “an employee who accepts the severance package rather than wait to see if he can remain employed cannot claim that he was constructively discharged”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a choice between a severance benefit and possibly retaining employment was not a “take-it-or-leave-it situation” and that “an employee who accepts the severance package rather than wait to see if he can remain employed cannot claim that he was constructively discharged”
- explaining that “[i]t is by now axiomatic that we cannot second-guess the business decisions of an employer,” and that the employer’s use of competency factors did not demonstrate intent to discriminate based on age
- observing that “courts have admitted statements of managers under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) where there is some evidence that the statements reflected some kind of participation in the employment decision or policy of the employer”
- holding that employee was not acting within scope of employment where there was no evidence that the declarant was involved in hiring process
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARNES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the Court’s decision affirming the grant of summary judgment and join the part of its opinion explaining that Rowell failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that his ranking for reduction in force purposes was the result of age discrimination. The issue of whether Rowell’s resignation amounted to a constructive discharge so as to satisfy the adverse employment action requirement is oné that I would not reach, and I do not join in that alternative holding.