context: As to the plaintiffs' retention argument, an employer replaces an employee by hiring or reassigning someone "to perform the plaintiffs duties." In considering the charge that the defendant reassigned younger employees to perform the plaintiffs' duties, "the relevant inquiry concerns the functions which the terminated employee[s] performed in [their] 'position[s]' and what happened to those functions after the termination."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 6 F.3d 846, 846
citation_a.parenthetical: employee "not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiffs duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work"
citation_a.sentence: Shenker v. Lockheed Sanders Inc., 919 F.Supp. 55, 60 (D.Mass.1996). Accordingly, the plaintiffs must demonstrate “that younger employees, who prior to the reduction in force were not performing the primary functions of the plaintiff[s’] job[s], had these functions transferred to them.” Id.; see LeBlanc, 6 F.3d at 846 (employee “not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiffs duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work”); see also Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 992 (8th Cir.1998) (ADEA plaintiff “effectively replaced by many individuals adopting his duties may still be able to establish that he was the object of impermissible discrimination related to his age”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 145 F.3d 986, 992
citation_b.parenthetical: ADEA plaintiff "effectively replaced by many individuals adopting his duties may still be able to establish that he was the object of impermissible discrimination related to his age"
citation_b.sentence: Shenker v. Lockheed Sanders Inc., 919 F.Supp. 55, 60 (D.Mass.1996). Accordingly, the plaintiffs must demonstrate “that younger employees, who prior to the reduction in force were not performing the primary functions of the plaintiff[s’] job[s], had these functions transferred to them.” Id.; see LeBlanc, 6 F.3d at 846 (employee “not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiffs duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work”); see also Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 992 (8th Cir.1998) (ADEA plaintiff “effectively replaced by many individuals adopting his duties may still be able to establish that he was the object of impermissible discrimination related to his age”).