Case Notes

Ex-Employee Fails in Bid For Sills Cummis' Financials

In a wrongful-termination case against Sills Cummis & Gross, a federal magistrate judge last month rebuffed a former employee's efforts to obtain firm financial records.

According to court documents, plaintiff Elijah Muhammad began working in Sills Cummis' operations department in 1987 as an interoffice messenger, ordering office supplies, keeping track of inventory and performing other related tasks.

In September 2011, Muhammad, then 54, was one of at least three people terminated in a workforce reduction ' technological changes had lessened the need for operations staff, who were reduced from 12 to nine, and Muhammad's position was eliminated, the documents said.

Muhammad was not told that age was a reason for his dismissal, no replacement was hired, Muhammad's duties were split up among the remaining staff, and at least one employee older than Muhammad was not let go, according to the documents. His supervisor was at least 50 years old at the time Muhammad was terminated, the documents noted.

Muhammad sued last year. He claimed he was terminated based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Sills Cummis' stated reason was pretextual. Last April, Muhammad sought to extend discovery and asked Dickson to compel production of firm-wide financial reports from 2009 through 2011, as well as employee files on two former co-workers, including salary information and hiring dates. Muhammad argued that the materials are relevant to Sills Cummis' reduction in force and would refute the firm's claim that he was let go for business reasons.

The firm countered that the financial records are irrelevant because the layoffs, though done for the sake of efficiency, were not motivated by financial distress. Job performance also was taken into account in deciding which employees to terminate, Sills Cummis claimed. The firm added that it already had provided Muhammad with the ages and job titles for the two employees whose information he sought.

In the Oct. 3 order, Dickson, sitting in Newark, NJ, denied Muhammad's request for the financial records, deeming them irrelevant to the case. The judge did, however, order Sills Cummis to turn over the files for the two employees. because the files will “likely include their performance evaluations, which are relevant to plaintiff's discrimination claim.”

At press time, a motion for summary judgment by Sills Cummis was pending. ' David Gialanella , New Jersey Law Journal

'

Ex-Employee Fails in Bid For Sills Cummis' Financials

In a wrongful-termination case against Sills Cummis & Gross, a federal magistrate judge last month rebuffed a former employee's efforts to obtain firm financial records.

According to court documents, plaintiff Elijah Muhammad began working in Sills Cummis' operations department in 1987 as an interoffice messenger, ordering office supplies, keeping track of inventory and performing other related tasks.

In September 2011, Muhammad, then 54, was one of at least three people terminated in a workforce reduction ' technological changes had lessened the need for operations staff, who were reduced from 12 to nine, and Muhammad's position was eliminated, the documents said.

Muhammad was not told that age was a reason for his dismissal, no replacement was hired, Muhammad's duties were split up among the remaining staff, and at least one employee older than Muhammad was not let go, according to the documents. His supervisor was at least 50 years old at the time Muhammad was terminated, the documents noted.

Muhammad sued last year. He claimed he was terminated based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Sills Cummis' stated reason was pretextual. Last April, Muhammad sought to extend discovery and asked Dickson to compel production of firm-wide financial reports from 2009 through 2011, as well as employee files on two former co-workers, including salary information and hiring dates. Muhammad argued that the materials are relevant to Sills Cummis' reduction in force and would refute the firm's claim that he was let go for business reasons.

The firm countered that the financial records are irrelevant because the layoffs, though done for the sake of efficiency, were not motivated by financial distress. Job performance also was taken into account in deciding which employees to terminate, Sills Cummis claimed. The firm added that it already had provided Muhammad with the ages and job titles for the two employees whose information he sought.

In the Oct. 3 order, Dickson, sitting in Newark, NJ, denied Muhammad's request for the financial records, deeming them irrelevant to the case. The judge did, however, order Sills Cummis to turn over the files for the two employees. because the files will “likely include their performance evaluations, which are relevant to plaintiff's discrimination claim.”

At press time, a motion for summary judgment by Sills Cummis was pending. ' David Gialanella , New Jersey Law Journal

'