The UW Board of Regents lost its appeal against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tuesday in the United States Court of Appeals.

The EEOC alleged the Board of Regents violated the Age Discrimination Employment Act when it terminated the employment of four people working for the UW Press on the basis of age.

“In an age-discrimination case, we evaluate whether there is evidence that the employer discriminated against the employees because of age,” the decision read. “Our task then, is to examine the record to see whether there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the charging parties were terminated because of their ages.”

The EEOC prevailed in a jury trial. Following the jury’s determination that there was a willful violation of the Age Discrimination Act, UW moved for judgment as a matter of law, as it did following the trial on damages. Those motions and a motion for a new trial were denied. UW appealed those rulings, as well as an award of costs to the EEOC.

The UW Press is a nonprofit organization associated with the UW Graduate School and is under the direction of the Board of Regents. It publishes scholarly books, journals, and periodicals, primarily in the humanities and social sciences.

The EEOC’s case is based on claims of termination because of age by four parties: Rosalie Robertson, who was 50 at the time, Mary Braun, who was 46, Joan Strasbaugh, who was 47, and Charles Evenson, who was 54.

“The unavoidable fact is that the four oldest employees were the only ones terminated, and the terminations occurred under circumstances from which one could, in fact, draw an inference that they were chosen because of their ages,” the decision read.

The university personnel who decided to fire them were David Bethea, interim director of the Press, and Steve Salemson, the associate director.

“After trial, the issue becomes whether the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, with the focus being on whether there was sufficient evidence on the ultimate question of discrimination,” the decision read.

When Bethea became interim director, he came to the conclusion that the Press was in financial trouble. To cut costs, he decided it was necessary to terminate some employees. Questions arose after the plaintiffs were fired, and several weeks later the Press hired or retained several workers in their mid-20s.

“To make out a prima facie case of age discrimination, the claimant must be replaced by someone ‘substantially younger.’ Our decisions have defined ‘substantially younger’ as 10 years younger,” the statement said. “[H]ere, some of the persons hired were 10 years younger than the plaintiffs.”
The court ruled in favor of the EEOC, saying the university used an age bias and shall not be granted a new trial.