Canada v. Perkins Coie LLP

Background

Brenda E. Canada, representing herself, sued her former employer, Perkins Coie LLP. Her amended complaint alleged that the firm wrongfully terminated her—or forced her to resign—in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, a federal law that prohibits certain age-based employment discrimination. Canada alleged that she worked as a legal secretary, was over 40, was qualified for the position, and was replaced by a 34-year-old.

Motion and analysis

Perkins Coie moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule based on the pleadings without proceeding further. The court described Canada’s amended complaint as thin but explained that, at this stage, an age-discrimination plaintiff did not need to plead facts providing strong support for the ultimate question of discriminatory intent. Without direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff needed only facts supporting a minimal, plausible inference that the adverse employment action was motivated by age discrimination.

The court concluded that Canada met that standard by alleging that she was over 40, qualified for her job, was forced to resign for pretextual reasons, and was replaced by a substantially younger worker.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Perkins Coie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order did not decide whether Canada would ultimately prove age discrimination. The parties were directed to appear for an initial pretrial conference on March 3, 2020, to discuss settlement and establish a discovery schedule. The clerk was also directed to terminate the motion and mail the opinion and order to Canada.