Judge sends age bias claims over restructured hiring process to jury

A federal court in Massachusetts has allowed age discrimination claims against a pharmaceutical company to proceed to trial, finding that a jury could conclude that the company’s interview-based rehiring process was designed in a way that disadvantaged older employees.

The case arises from a 2020 corporate restructuring in which Alexion Pharmaceuticals eliminated all case manager roles and created new positions. Affected employees, including the plaintiffs, were required to reapply for those roles through a process based entirely on a single panel interview.

The plaintiffs were not selected for the new positions and were terminated when their roles were eliminated. They alleged that the process functioned as a mechanism to favor younger candidates, rather than a neutral evaluation of qualifications.

Focus on process design and outcomes

In denying summary judgment, the court pointed to evidence that the hiring process excluded consideration of experience, seniority and prior performance, relying instead on interview scores.

The record reflected that older internal candidates tended to receive lower scores than younger applicants and were not selected for the most desirable roles.

The court noted allegations of inconsistent treatment among candidates, including differences in how applicants were guided through the process and restrictions placed on where certain employees could apply.

Taken together, the judge concluded that this evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to evaluate whether the employer’s stated reasons for its decisions were genuine.

Why the claims are moving forward

The court’s ruling reflects the principle that discrimination claims may proceed based on circumstantial evidence, particularly where a process appears to depart from standard practices or produces uneven results across groups.

Here, the combination of a highly subjective selection method, the exclusion of objective criteria, and alleged inconsistencies in application created a factual dispute that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

What employers should watch

The decision highlights the risk of relying on interview-only or heavily subjective hiring processes, particularly in the context of restructuring or reductions in force.

Here are some key lessons for employers:

• Processes that exclude objective factors such as experience and performance history may be more vulnerable to challenge.
• Inconsistent treatment of candidates or deviations from internal policies can support claims that a stated reason is not the real reason.
• Employers should ensure that selection criteria are clearly defined, consistently applied, and aligned with documented business needs.
• Reviewing restructuring-related hiring decisions for potential adverse impact can help identify issues before they lead to litigation.