## Facts

- Mark Poore worked for Peterbilt of Bristol, L.L.C. beginning in 2005 and was 50 years old when terminated.
- After new ownership took over in December 2009, Peterbilt required Poore to complete a health-insurance questionnaire about family medical conditions and medications.
- Poore disclosed that his wife had multiple sclerosis (MS).
- A manager later asked when Poore’s wife was diagnosed and inquired about her prognosis.
- Poore was terminated a few days after these inquiries, despite allegations of satisfactory performance and praise from the new owners.
- Poore alleged he was replaced by a substantially younger, less-experienced person.
- Poore sued Peterbilt and Omega Business Solutions, Inc. (an employee-leasing/HR contractor), asserting statutory employment claims, including ADEA and GINA claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the ADEA and GINA counts under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a 50-year-old, satisfactorily performing employee was terminated and replaced by a younger, less-experienced worker plausibly stated an ADEA age-discrimination claim.
2. Whether allegations that the employer obtained and allegedly used information that the employee’s wife had MS stated a GINA claim for discrimination based on “genetic information.”

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss the GINA claim for failure to state a claim.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss the ADEA claim, finding the age-discrimination allegations plausible.
- The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a claim for relief.
- An ADEA plaintiff must allege facts permitting a reasonable inference that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action; detailed evidentiary proof is not required at the pleading stage.
- Allegations of membership in the protected age group, satisfactory performance, termination, and replacement by a substantially younger worker can plausibly support an ADEA claim.
- GINA liability requires discrimination based on protected “genetic information” as defined by statute; not all medical information about a relative qualifies as genetic information about the employee.
- Information that an employee’s spouse has a diagnosed medical condition, without allegations tying that fact to protected genetic information about the employee, does not state a GINA claim.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the age-discrimination claim to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged termination of a 50-year-old satisfactory employee and replacement by a younger worker, but dismissed the GINA claim because the spouse’s MS diagnosis, as pleaded, was not the employee’s protected “genetic information” under the statute.


Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol, L.L.C., 852 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Va. 2012)