## Facts

- Jimmy Palasota worked for Haggar Clothing Co. as a Sales Associate for 28 years and was terminated on May 10, 1996, at age 51.
- Palasota serviced major accounts, including Dillard’s and multiple J.C. Penney accounts, and presented evidence of strong performance and customer relationships.
- During the early-to-mid 1990s, Haggar restructured its sales model and expanded a Retail Marketing Associate (RMA) program that shifted functions away from Sales Associates.
- Evidence showed a stark demographic split: RMAs were predominantly younger (late 20s to early 30s) and largely female, while Sales Associates were predominantly older (mid-40s to mid-50s) and largely male.
- Palasota introduced statistical evidence that Haggar hired dozens of RMAs (mostly under 40) while terminating numerous Sales Associates (all over 40) during overlapping periods.
- Haggar’s CFO testified that increases in RMAs and decreases in Sales Associates offset each other in the sales budget, supporting an inference that the two trends were linked.
- Haggar changed compensation and territory assignments and offered Palasota a different territory that would materially reduce his income; Palasota declined the offer and a severance package.
- Haggar asserted the termination resulted from restructuring and business needs rather than age discrimination; Palasota contended the restructuring served to replace older, higher-paid Sales Associates with younger RMAs and to project a “younger image.”

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, a reasonable jury could find that Haggar terminated Palasota because of age in violation of the ADEA.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the ADEA violation was willful, supporting liquidated damages.
3. Whether the district court improperly granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) by reweighing evidence and credibility after the jury verdict.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL for Haggar.
- The court reinstated the jury verdict finding age discrimination and willfulness under the ADEA.
- The court remanded for further proceedings on issues the district court had not reached following its post-verdict JMOL.

## Legal Principles

- JMOL is improper unless the evidence and reasonable inferences point so strongly in favor of the movant that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary verdict; courts must view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- In ADEA cases using burden-shifting, the plaintiff may prevail by presenting evidence that the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual and that age was a motivating factor.
- An ADEA violation is “willful” if the employer knew or showed reckless disregard as to whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.
- Statistical, structural, and comparative workforce evidence can support an inference of discriminatory intent and can permit a jury to reject “restructuring” explanations as pretext, particularly when changes disproportionately displace older workers while younger workers are hired into functionally related roles.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Palasota presented legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Haggar’s restructuring was used to replace older Sales Associates with younger RMAs and that the resulting ADEA violation was willful; the district court therefore erred by granting JMOL and setting aside the jury’s verdict.


Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2003)