A man who worked for more than three decades with the City of Arvada has plausibly claimed that his age was a key factor for his termination in violation of federal law, a judge has decided.

Brian Williams filed a lawsuit in August 2021 alleging that his 32-year career with the city’s public works department ended because his employer viewed him as “getting older, physically wearing out, and becoming a liability.” The city moved to dismiss the lawsuit, denying that discrimination played any role in Williams’ termination and pointing to his history of insubordination and hostility in the workplace as reasons for his firing.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang believed that the confluence of factors laid out in Williams’ lawsuit could suggest that his supervisor at the time, Dan Pumphrey, used Williams’ past behavior to mask the real reason motivating the termination – his age.

“Defendants point to the ‘incidents of insubordination’ referenced in Mr. Pumphrey’s Termination Memo to support their position that Plaintiff’s termination was based on those incidents, and not age discrimination,” Wang wrote in her April 13 order. “The court is not persuaded.”

Williams had worked for the city since 1988, primarily on concrete and asphalt projects. He suffered a shoulder injury on the job in 2016 that led to an extended period of light duty. Afterward, Williams reportedly noticed incidents of discrimination against him.

According to his lawsuit, a supervisor told Williams and another older employee that they did not need to submit their resumes to be considered for a supervisory position, but in reality their failure to provide resumes ruled out their consideration for the job. Pumphrey also allegedly began asking Williams how much longer he intended to work before retiring, how old Williams was and observed that Williams was “falling apart.”

The city viewed Pumphrey’s remarks as benign.

“Conversations asking how much longer an employee is thinking about working for an employer are not indicative of age discrimination, but of casual conversation and managerial planning,” the Arvada City Attorney’s Office wrote in response to the accusations.

Williams also claimed he caught Pumphrey and another supervisor, Craig Koehler, searching his locker at work “trying to find evidence of some wrongful conduct.” The city admitted that the locker search had happened.

Both sides disputed the nature of the incident that directly preceded Williams’ firing. On July 16, 2020, Koehler told Williams he was leaving his temporary assignment on the concrete crew to return to sweeping and mowing. Williams questioned the the transfer in front of the entire crew, prompting the two men to go to Koehler’s office.

In Williams’ telling, Koehler began yelling at Williams, in what Williams saw as a pattern of supervisors provoking employees into losing their tempers to justify a firing. Williams reportedly declined to take the bait, but Pumphrey later placed him on administrative leave.

According to the city, it was Williams who argued with and swore at Koehler. Williams then left for the day.

Several days later, Pumphrey wrote a memorandum recommending Williams’ termination. In doing so, Pumphrey referenced five other “Inappropriate outbursts / Violence in the Workplace incidents” from Williams, including one from the year 2000. Don Wick, the director of public works, evaluated the recommendation and also noted four reprimands given to Williams two decades in the past.

“I find little evidence to indicate you take actions to improve relationships and gain awareness of your own behaviors,” Wick wrote in deciding to terminate Williams. Ultimately, Williams resigned in the face of the impending termination.

The city, in asking to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that Williams had failed to link Pumphrey’s alleged discriminatory comments with Williams’ firing. Pumphrey’s memo to Wick never mentioned Williams’ age or physical abilities, meaning Williams had failed to show that his age was the factor that triggered his termination.

“Given Mr. Pumphrey’s innocuous statements, Plaintiff’s admission of repeated insubordination, the lack of facts demonstrating Mr. Pumphrey was dishonest, and lack of discriminatory memorandum references, even if all facts alleged in the Complaint are true, Plaintiff cannot show that Mr. Pumphrey engaged in any discriminatory actions against Plaintiff,” wrote Assistant City Attorney Kylie T. Justus.

Wang noted that Williams had met the prerequisites for filing a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: He was over 40, he left because the city planned to terminate him, and the person who replaced him was younger than 40. The city did not contest those factors.

The magistrate judge wrote that Williams’ age did not have to be the only reason for his termination for him to pursue a viable discrimination claim. Instead, age had to be the factor that made the difference. Taken as a whole, she believed Pumphrey’s alleged age-related comments and his memo’s reliance on old instances of discipline – including one from 20 years in the past – indirectly supported a hypothesis that the city had motivations for firing Williams other than the ones stated.

Wang also declined to dismiss a claim specifically against Pumphrey for allegedly interfering with Williams’ employment contract by acting with personal bias outside of his official duties. She rejected the city’s argument that Pumphrey was merely a supervisor who was assisting with the discipline of an employee, and therefore could not be sued.

“Under these circumstances, the court finds that, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged willful and wanton conduct on the part of Defendant Pumphrey,” Wang wrote.

Williams’ complaint further alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the city did not seek to dismiss. Wang did grant the city’s motion to throw out Williams’ allegation of “age discrimination plus perceived-disability discrimination,” finding that the law does not recognize such a claim.

The case is Williams v. City of Arvada et al.