Loza v. Intel Americas, Inc.

Background

Thomas Loza worked for Intel for 22 years and was terminated in September 2019, when he was 45 and less than four years from qualifying for retirement benefits under Intel’s “Rule of 75” policy. Intel said it fired him because of communication, collaboration, and workplace-conduct problems. Loza argued that Intel was trying to reduce costs by replacing more-experienced employees with lower-cost employees and that the approaching cost of his retirement benefits motivated his termination.

Loza asserted claims under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee with the specific intent to interfere with rights under an employee-benefit plan. He also asserted age-discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Loza, the nonmoving party.

ERISA Section 510 claim

The court held that Loza presented enough evidence for his ERISA claim to proceed. He had worked for Intel for 22 years, was terminated about four years before becoming eligible for benefits, and testified that an Intel finance employee had described a plan to replace more-experienced employees with lower-cost employees. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could infer that the impending cost of Loza’s retirement benefits motivated the discharge.

Intel identified Loza’s communication and collaboration problems and incompatibility with its workplace culture as its legitimate business reason for the termination. The court determined that a reasonable factfinder could regard those explanations as pretextual, or false reasons masking an unlawful motive, based on the timing of the termination and evidence that Intel was concerned about the cost burden of more-experienced employees. The court also rejected Intel’s argument that the four-year gap before benefit eligibility was too long to support an inference of interference. The motion for summary judgment on the ERISA claim was DENIED.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim

The court granted summary judgment to Intel on the federal age-discrimination claim. The court explained that Loza had to show that age was the “but-for” cause of the termination and that evidence of a desire to avoid pension costs, without evidence of age-based motivation, was insufficient.

The record did not show that any Intel employee over 40 had been terminated, demoted, or replaced by a younger employee. Loza was terminated by a supervisor the same age as him, replaced by someone seven years older, and had not received age-related comments. The court also found that Loza’s testimony about other employees was based on hearsay and, even if admissible, showed cost-cutting rather than age discrimination. The motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim was GRANTED.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act claim

The court granted summary judgment to Intel on Loza’s California age-discrimination claim. Because the state claim failed for the same reasons as the federal claim, the motion for summary judgment on the FEHA claim was GRANTED.

Disposition and next steps

The court held that Intel’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins for mediation. It also stated that the pretrial conference would occur on April 6, 2022, and that a bench trial would begin on April 11, 2022. Judge William Alsup signed the order.