A former employee who charged that she was forced out of her job because of her age can proceed to a jury trial based on circumstantial evidence, a federal district court in Illinois decides. The court points out that the complainant was nicknamed “Grandma” by her store manager; the company implemented a new business model that led to demotions and terminations for older employees; and the company held the complainant to “substantially more demanding standards because of her seniority.”

The court says that the “Grandma” nickname alone “would never be enough to bring a successful claim” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. “Nevertheless, in the workplace, calling someone ‘Grandma’ does suggest ageism,” the court observes. The court says that it was “suspicious” because “a business model that results in the demotion or termination of ‘more tenured’ employees is an effective artifice to push older employees out the door.” The court also points out that the company did not adequately explain why the employee was placed on more demanding performance standards because of her seniority with the company, which the court calls “a convenient euphemism for her age.” McDonald v. Best Buy