B&B Founding Partner, Todd Bennett, was recently quoted in “Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly” (MLW) in connection with a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirming dismissal by the lower court of age discrimination claims against Trader Joe’s. The case highlights important considerations relating to strategy when bringing employment discrimination claims.
The case, Cocuzzo v. Trader Joe’s East Inc., et al. (No. 23-1695) (Nov. 15, 2024), involved a 77-year-old Trader Joe’s employee whose employment was terminated after purchasing alcohol for her 19-year-old grandson at the store where they both worked. Ms. Cocuzzo filed suit against Trader Joe’s and her former supervisor, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (“Chapter 151B”).
Trader Joe’s maintained that it terminated Ms. Cocuzzo’s employment because she knowingly purchased alcohol for an underage individual in violation of its alcohol policy and the law. In challenging her termination and attempting to show that it was pretext for age discrimination, Ms. Cocuzzo advanced numerous arguments, including: identifying younger employees who received lesser discipline, in one case for a similar alcohol policy violation; highlighting Trader Joe’s shifting explanations for terminating her employment; and noting that her supervisor had offered to let her “retire” in lieu of being terminated. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all of Ms. Cocuzzo’s arguments, finding that she failed to demonstrate Trade Joe’s reason for terminating her employment — that she had knowingly purchased alcohol for an underage person — was pretextual or motivated by age discrimination.
With respect to the employee who was decades younger than Ms. Cocuzzo and who sold alcohol to an underage person, the Appeals Court noted that this person was not a proper “comparator” of Ms. Cocuzzo because this younger employee immediately self-reported selling alcohol to an underage person, whereas Ms. Cocuzzo only admitted purchasing the alcohol for her 19 year old grandson after she was confronted by management.
Attorney Bennett offered insight and commentary on the strategic implications of the case, including planning what type of claims a plaintiff employee should bring. He told MLW, “Although there certainly could have been a strategic reason to bring [a federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act] claim in this case, bringing the ADEA claim resulted in removal to federal court by Trader Joe’s based on federal question.” Attorney Bennett also stated, “the jury pool tends to be better for plaintiffs in state court and that Massachusetts has some of the nation’s most favorable employment law statutes.”
Choosing the court where you want your client’s case to be filed is an important consideration that requires experience and careful consideration.
