“Age Discrimination, or Is It?”

A recent case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, involving General Motors, provides a great reminder to employers and employees alike of what is required to establish a claim of age discrimination.  In Mark Yacko v. General Motors Co., No. 25-3039 (6th Cir. 2026), the Sixth Circuit upheld the decision to grant General Motors motion for summary judgement against the plaintiff due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination. 

In this case, the plaintiff, a GM employee who was a Group Leader in the Maintenance Group, was terminated because he was rated as a “teamGMminus” in his annual performance rating. This minus rating was flagged when a member of GM’s human resources team was identifying underperformers as part of a cost cutting and staffing reduction program.  The plaintiff, Mr. Yacko, and one other employee were flagged as underperformers and were terminated as a result.  Yacko challenged his termination claiming that he was discriminated on the basis of his age and alleging breach of contract and defamation.  The lower court granted GM’s motion for summary judgement on all claims; Yacko only appealed the dismissal of his age discrimination claim. 

In reviewing this decision, it is important to look at the background leading to this termination.  Yacko was a marginal employee who had skated through his prior evaluations, largely due to the fact that GM had a poorly designed evaluation process. The process had an odd rating system, using a scale of one to nine.  However, it was not clear to those being rated what the numbers meant, as one was not viewed to be the worst and nine was not viewed to be the best.  Most employees received fives under that rating system, because it was so confusing.  In 2022, Yacko received a four on the nine-point rating scale from a new manager.  At the same time, GM eliminated the nine-point scale and changed it to a three-point rating system.  Under the three box rating system, employees were either rated “plus, minus, or par.”  Yacko received a minus under the new rating system and it was this rating that led to the decision to terminate him. 

The new rating system left both Yacko and another employee, who was 15 years younger than Yacko, vulnerable to termination based on their employee ratings.  After he was terminated, Yacko filed his lawsuit claiming, among other things, that his termination was based at least in part on his age.  He then pointed to the fact that an employee who was approximately 7 years younger than him was chosen to replace him in his role. The court denied Yacko’s age discrimination claim determining that the age of Yacko’s replacement could not, without more evidence of age being a contributing factor to the decision to fire him, establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination. 

The court noted that to successfully state a claim for age discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) they were older than 40 when the action occurred; (2) the employment action taken was adverse to the plaintiff; (3) they were qualified for the position they were terminated from; and (4) that they were replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated, non-protected employee. While Yacko was able to meet the first three requirements, he lost his case on the basis of a couple of factors that caused him to fail to meet the fourth requirement.  First, he could not show and did not allege that age was a factor in the decision making that resulted in his termination.  Second, his claim of age discrimination on the basis of the age of his replacement failed because of the “insignificance” of the age difference between him and the individual who replaced him.  Finally, the fact that another employee who had a minus rating and was fifteen years younger than Yacko was also fired also negated Yacko’s claim of age discrimination. 

Employers can learn from this decision.  When making employment decisions, it is important to properly document and provide the justification for the decision.  This will help avoid any wrongful termination claims.  In this case, GM’s performance evaluation tool and the process by which they made their evaluations of employees for termination provided a legitimate business reason for the termination.  There was no evidence of improper motivation that the plaintiff could point to in support of his claim for age discrimination and that, ultimately, was his downfall.  A good evaluation process, well documented performance evaluations, and a standard and objective process by which employment decisions are made are necessary elements to an effective defense against wrongful termination claims – whether they be age-related or based on other protective characteristics.  myHRcounsel can assist employers in establishing the policies and processes by which employment decisions are made and coach them through difficult employment situations.