## Facts

- Milan Dediol, a 65-year-old used-car salesman and practicing born-again Christian, worked for Best Chevrolet from June 1, 2007 to August 30, 2007 under Used Car Sales Manager Donald Clay.
- After Dediol sought July 4 time off for a church event, Clay allegedly overruled prior permission and began using age-related vulgar epithets toward Dediol multiple times daily, often refusing to call him by name.
- Dediol alleged Clay repeatedly mocked his religious beliefs and practices, including telling him to “go to your God” to save his job and similar remarks, occurring roughly a dozen times during the employment period.
- Dediol alleged Clay diverted sales opportunities to younger employees and ordered Dediol to work the lot while ridiculing his Bible reading.
- Dediol described repeated physical intimidation and threats of violence, including threats to “kick [his] ass” and an episode where Clay removed his shirt while threatening to beat him.
- Dediol sought a transfer to the new-car department; after preliminary approval from management, Clay allegedly blocked the move and threatened Dediol while charging toward him in front of coworkers.
- Following the escalation in late August 2007, Dediol stopped reporting to work and later stated he could not continue under Clay’s conditions; the dealership recorded the separation as job abandonment.
- After exhausting administrative steps, Dediol sued asserting age-based hostile work environment under the ADEA, religion-based hostile work environment under Title VII, and constructive discharge (plus a state-law assault claim).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the federal claims; Dediol appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a hostile work environment claim is cognizable under the ADEA and, if so, whether the evidence raised a triable issue that age-based harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive.
2. Whether the evidence raised a triable issue that religion-based harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect a term or condition of employment under Title VII.
3. Whether the evidence raised a triable issue that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign (constructive discharge).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held hostile work environment claims are actionable under the ADEA, applying a Title VII-type severe-or-pervasive framework.
- Viewing the record in the nonmovant’s favor, the court found genuine disputes of material fact on age-based hostile work environment, religion-based hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.
- The court emphasized the alleged frequency of age-based epithets, repeated religious disparagement, and accompanying threats and intimidation, including a thwarted transfer request and escalated threats of violence.

## Legal Principles

- A hostile work environment claim is cognizable under the ADEA in the Fifth Circuit.
- Hostile work environment requires proof of unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment (evaluated objectively and subjectively).
- Under Title VII, religious harassment is actionable when it is based on religion, severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, and imputable to the employer.
- Constructive discharge exists when working conditions are so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.
- On summary judgment, where the frequency, humiliating nature, and threatening context of alleged harassment could permit a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff, the claims must proceed to factfinding.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that evidence of repeated age- and religion-based abuse coupled with threats and intimidation could permit a reasonable jury to find hostile work environments under the ADEA and Title VII and to find constructive discharge, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., 655 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2011)