Anderson v. BDO USA, P.C.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denies BDO USA, P.C.’s motion for summary judgment in Kevin Anderson’s age-discrimination action under the D.C. Human Rights Act. The court concludes that a reasonable jury could find the proposed compensation change materially adverse and could view BDO’s asserted productivity rationale as pretextual, based on the absence of documented utilization expectations and Anderson’s positive performance review. The court also finds sufficient circumstantial evidence of age-related animus to allow the claim to proceed.

Holdings

1. A proposed shift to hourly compensation, accompanied by a projected reduction of more than $385,000 and a 20-hour weekly cap, could constitute a materially adverse change in employment conditions; the related termination was also an adverse employment action.
2. Anderson presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that age discrimination substantially motivated BDO's compensation change and termination.
3. The court declined to dismiss Anderson's punitive-damages claim because punitive damages are available under the DCHRA subject to general punitive-damages principles, and BDO did not establish a basis for removing the issue from the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed shift from salaried to hourly compensation and Anderson's resulting termination constituted an adverse employment action under the D.C. Human Rights Act.
2. Whether Anderson presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that age discrimination was a substantial factor in BDO's compensation change and termination.
3. Whether Anderson's claim for punitive damages should be dismissed at the summary-judgment stage.

Disposition

other