The case of hiring the younger man

John, a US citizen was working at a multi-national company’s facility in Nigeria. He was 41 years old. John as an accountant, he sat all day at his desk. He said his back hurt and he needed an ergonomically evaluation of his work area. His salary was $100,000 per year. The employer was incorporated in the state of Louisiana. When John was terminated, allegedly because of his age, he sought recovery under the federal ADEA and also the Louisiana age discrimination in employment law. The person who was hired to replace John was 21 years old. His replacement was paid $25,00 annualy. He was also the owner’s cousin.

The employer argue that its overseas operations were not subject to the federal ADEA. They further stated the John’s job performance was declining and that he was too needy. They needed someone in the job who could keep up with the production pace and not complain so much. An ergonomic study of his work area would cost $10,000 and humor had it that the modification would cost the company upwards of $100,000. John had continually been complaining about how tired he was at the end of the day and how is back hurt so it was more cost efficient to get a younger stronger worker who did not have so many issues.

John argue that the only apparent reason for terminating his services was that the employer wanted to save money. They hired a younger person for a lot less money and to avoid providing him with a safe work area.

1. As a juror in this case, how would you decide the case? Please explain in detail.

2. Would your answer be the same if John was 39 years old?

3. How would you decide it if John was 25 years old and the replacement was 18 years old?