The plaintiff, a 57 year old female, was terminated from her position as a management consultant during a restructuring of the firm, allegedly because her expertise was not a good “fit” for the firm’s new business focus.

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. If, as the court says, the consulting firm “was entitled to restructure the Transportation Group to return it to profitability and fire people to do so,” why are they in legal trouble for firing Barnett?

3. Evidence on the relative performance of employees is central to this decision. What was the evidence regarding the performance of Barnett compared to the younger male employee who was retained (Gao)? Does that evidence support Barnett’s claim that the firm’s stated reason for her termination is pretext? Why or why not?

4. Overall, does it appear that Barnett’s termination was discriminatory? Why or why not?

5. Are there things that this employer might have done to better handle this situation? What things?