Case: Externalities of Age Discrimination Safeguards

Lindsey worked as a top manager at a struggling technology company in Silicon Valley. As part of a companywide initiative, she had the task of downsizing her department by a considerable margin. Among the most troubling decisions involved eliminating a position within her department's most productive teams: eight people for seven jobs. As she considered each team members'; contributions and merits, there were two employees whose performance reviews were far behind the rest of the team.

Dianne was a 38-year-old woman, an employee at the company for 12 years, and an average performer. She worked hard and did a decent job overall, but failed to thrive at the company. She worked for a mediocre manager and Lindsey thought Diane's performance would improve if she worked for a more competent manager. Lindsey felt that Diane had more potential than Ron, but up until now it had not been realized.

Ron was a 42-year-old male with tenure and experience in the firm similar to Diane. Like Diane, he was an average performer but was not a rising star in the organization. He did not show as much potential as Dianne. However, because Ron was over 40, he was considered a member of a "protected class," giving him special protections against discrimination based on age. If Lindsey fired him, he could, and most certainly would, sue the company with a claim that he was being let go because of age discrimination.

Lindsey felt that Dianne was the slightly better candidate, given her potential to grow into a top contributor. On the other hand, eliminating Ron's position would expose the company to a lawsuit and the expenses associated with it, perhaps outweighing any benefit the company would gain by choosing Diane over Ron.

1. What should Lindsey do?

2. Should Lindsey consider the threat of a lawsuit in her decision making?