A recent federal court decision in an age discrimination case illustrates how routine employment decisions can create litigation risk when execution is inconsistent or poorly documented.  

In the case, Gaudette v. Corning, Inc. (Gaudette), a 62‑year‑old temporary worker sued his employer after being denied conversion to a regular position despite receiving and accepting a formal offer letter. The employer ultimately withdrew the offer, citing performance and budget reasons, and then subsequently hired two younger temporary workers into regular permanent roles. Although the employee’s evidence was described by the court as “thin,” it ultimately found that a jury could still find discrimination based on the employer’s irregular hiring practices, shifting explanations, and comparative evidence. 

Employers can use the following best practices – illustrated by facts from the Gaudette case – to help minimize risk when making routine employment decisions such as terminations: 

Follow your usual practices—every time.
The Gaudette court focused heavily on deviations from the employer’s “usual approach” to evaluating temporary workers for permanent roles. Evidence suggested that an offer letter was issued to the temporary employee before performance evaluations were reviewed, contrary to the manager’s stated practice. This irregularity in particular raised questions of credibility with court. 

Ensure offers and decisions are accurate and consistent.
In the Gaudette case the employee alleged that they received and accepted a formal offer letter, only to be told later – and for various differing reasons – that the offer was not a real offer of employment.  The court found that the employer’s shifting explanations for the offer looked like an excuse rather than the real reason – especially given who it hired later. 

Be truthful and consistent in explaining decisions.
The employee in Gaudette identified multiple, changing reasons for the employer’s refusal to hire him—lack of budget, performance issues, and the claim that no offer existed. The court emphasized that inconsistent explanations, especially if untrue, can undermine an employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason. 

Consider how comparators will be viewed.
The employer hired two younger temporary workers into permanent roles shortly after denying the plaintiff’s conversion from a temporary employee. Despite differences in performance evaluations between the plaintiff and the two younger workers, the court found enough overlap to allow a jury to view the employees as similarly situated. 

Credibility matters.
Ultimately, the Gaudette court stressed that the case turned on witness credibility. Underscoring that even an unremarkable evidentiary record can reach a jury when an employer’s process appears inconsistent or poorly explained. 

Gaudette serves as a reminder that even routine employment decisions can create significant litigation risk when processes are inconsistent, poorly documented, or inadequately explained. Employers that adhere to established practices, communicate decisions clearly and truthfully, and carefully consider how those decisions may appear in comparison to similarly situated employees, will be far better positioned to defend against discrimination claims. In employment actions, consistency and credibility are often the strongest safeguards.