A 56-year old man whose wife had cancer applied for a “scheduler” position. He had held this job previously before leaving to work elsewhere. A 40-year-old man was hired instead. As a former scheduler, the 56-year old had experience wit the SAP system used by the company. The maintenance manager, who was in charge of hiring, scored the successful candidate one point higher on a candidate rating form based on his education, while rating the candidates equal in all other areas. The company explained the hiring decision by pointing out that the successful candidate had more recent scheduling, planning, logistics, and SAP experience; interviewed very well; was more energetic and outgoing; and scored one point higher on the Candidate Evaluation Form. 

The Site manager, to whom the maintenance manager reported, had recently expressed concern over the aging workforce at the facility. At about the same time as the hiring decision, the site manager told two employees that he opposed hiring the 56-year-old because of his age and because he would have to miss work to care for his wife because of her cancer. He stated further that he would like to hire someone “young” for the position, perhaps someone just out of high school. The site manager also e-mailed an HR manager, saying that the 56-year-old might be needed as a temp until a permanent hire could be made. The e-mail acknowledged support by the maintenance manager and others for hiring the 56-year-old permanently, but concluded that “I just put the nix to this…” because “[h]is wife has cancer and requires and [sic] lot of his time at home…” and “[h]e is at least 56 and has his own medical problems…” 

At a meeting with the maintenance manager, the site manager reiterated that he did not want the 56-year-old hired because of his age and the condition of his wife. The maintenance manager said that “if those are the requirements, you [can] do the hiring.” The maintenance manager later told the site manager that he would not “break a federal law for you or anybody.” The site manager drafted a corrective action memo based on the maintenance manager’s “insubordination.” However, when the memo was sent to corporate headquarters for approval, the site manager’s boss said that it was “inappropriate,” “made no sense,” and “there would be no further action.” 

The site manager was told to not participate on the committee evaluating scheduler candidates and the maintenance manager was given assurances that there would be no repercussions or backlash from the incident. The maintenance manager ultimately decided on the younger candidate. Does the unsuccessful job candidate have a viable age and/or disability discrimination case? Why or why not?