MetLife VP Laid Off at 64 Can Take Age Bias Claims to Trial

Communications among MetLife Group Inc. decision-makers referencing a former vice president’s alleged retirement plans could help prove discrimination caused his discharge at age 64, the District of Massachusetts ruled.

The emails, text messages, and related notes may indicate the insurer didn’t “treat age neutrally” when it implemented the workforce reduction that cost Bill Fife his job, the court said Nov. 15. The downsizing was prompted by MetLife’s 2016 decision to spin off some of its U.S. retail business into Brighthouse Financial. Fife had built a strong performance record during his 14 years with MetLife and predecessor Travelers, most recently as vice president of strategic relationship management and divisional sales managers, where his duties included acting as a DSM, the court said.

MetLife says Fife was included in the RIF because one decision-maker believed he was aggressive and contrarian, and another employee believed it would have been necessary to ask him to take a pay cut if retained solely as a DSM. But a jury could find otherwise because those were just two of “at least five” justifications the company offered at various points, Judge Patti B. Saris said.

It initially told Fife his position had been eliminated but then told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission it chose to retain another employee over Fife, Saris said. The explanation given to the EEOC was undercut by the deposition testimony of two decision-makers, she said. MetLife later told an Iowa agency, in response to another worker’s bias charge, that it kept “the DSMs with the strongest point of sales experience"—which also was undercut by a decision-maker’s testimony, the judge said.

The retirement-related discussions here weren’t of the type that courts have found don’t amount to evidence of age bias, Saris said. The decision-makers didn’t simply ask Fife about his plans to retire or make “stray remarks” about his retirement unconnected to the layoffs. They instead seem to have repeatedly factored Fife’s perceived “retirement timeline” into their decision-making, the judge said.

MetLife also failed to identify all of the employees considered for the RIF and their ages, as required by federal law, when it offered Fife a severance package to induce him to waive any bias claims he might have over his discharge, the court said.

Console Mattiacci Law LLC represents Fife. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represents MetLife.

The case is Fife v. MetLife Grp., Inc., 2019 BL 441836, D. Mass., No. 17-11387, 11/15/19.