Finizia v. Crawford & Company

Background

Vincent C. Finizia sued Crawford & Company and Kimberly Bethea, alleging age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Finizia worked as a property claims adjuster for Crawford beginning in February 2018. He was 67 when hired and 69 when his employment ended.

Crawford considered terminating Finizia in late 2018 after determining that the New York property-claims unit was overstaffed and that Finizia had the lowest productivity in the territory. Instead, Crawford moved him from a salaried position to a commissioned position, reducing his salary from $65,000 to $48,750.

Finizia’s performance reviews included positive comments about his customer service and work quality, but also cited low productivity, incomplete written work, and other performance concerns. In April 2020, after claims volume declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bethea recommended terminating Finizia because his territory did not have enough work for two full-time adjusters and his production was in the bottom quartile. Crawford did not refill Finizia’s position or hire another property adjuster for his territory.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but unsupported or merely speculative assertions are insufficient.

For the age-discrimination claims, the court applied the burden-shifting framework used under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. After an employer gives a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, the employee must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that age was the necessary cause of the action, rather than merely one possible factor.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that Finizia had met the initial requirements for an age-discrimination claim. It held that the defendants had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination: Crawford’s reduced claims volume and Finizia’s low productivity.

The court concluded that Finizia did not provide enough evidence for a jury to find those reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. It relied on evidence that Finizia’s productivity concerns existed from early in his employment, that Crawford had considered terminating him in 2018, that his territory did not generate enough work for two adjusters, and that his productivity remained low after his territory was expanded.

The court also rejected Finizia’s reliance on positive portions of his performance review, his claim that he asked for more assignments, and the ages of other employees who were furloughed or retained. The court noted that the record showed other older employees remained employed or were treated differently for stated reasons, and that Finizia had not identified a similarly situated younger employee whom Crawford treated more favorably. The court also found that Bethea and Finizia’s supervisor were within the protected age group.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It stated that Finizia’s claims must be dismissed, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and ordered the case closed.