A former Arvada city employee has not shown that his termination after 32 years was related to his age or perceived disability, a federal judge determined last month, noting the plaintiff himself even walked back his own allegations of discrimination.

Brian Williams worked in the streets division of the Arvada Public Works Department between 1988 and 2020. The director fired him after an outburst with his supervisor, citing other performance problems and behavioral issues throughout Williams’ tenure. Williams, in turn, argued the city discriminated against him because of his age, and alleged he received multiple ageist comments during his final years in the job.

U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang sided with the city, finding no direct evidence of age discrimination, but rather information corroborating Arvada’s stated reasons for firing Williams.

“Plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to allow a factfinder to conclude that his age was even a factor in … his termination. To the contrary, his testimony suggests that the City was unaware of his age,” she wrote in a Feb. 16 order.

Williams alleged Arvada violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which applies to workers 40 or older, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Having injured his shoulder near the end of his career, Williams alleged the city also discriminated against him because of his “perceived disability,” which the ADA prohibits.

Last year, Wang denied Arvada’s motion to dismiss most of Williams’ claims, finding he had credibly alleged his supervisors used his performance to mask the real, unlawful motivations behind his termination. Shortly afterward, the city moved for summary judgment, which would enable Wang to decide the case without a trial if the key, undisputed facts pointed to only one outcome.

Looking at the evidence and at Williams’ own words, Wang believed they did not support the allegations.

Williams became a streets foreman in 2006 and filed multiple workers’-compensation claims with the city throughout his employment, none of which resulted in termination of discipline. In 2019, Williams aggravated an old injury and the city placed him on light duty, then on the sweeping and mowing crew. 

In 2020, the city transferred Williams to his desired assignment on the concrete crew, but understood it to be a temporary placement. When Williams’ supervisor announced he would be returning to sweeping and mowing, Williams became upset in front of the crew, then argued in the supervisor’s office.

Upon leaving, Williams used foul language about his supervisor and took the rest of the day off. Williams’ actions left the supervisor concerned that “physical violence was within the realm of potential outcomes.”

The human resources department launched an investigation and interviewed witnesses, which corroborated Williams’ outburst.

“Managers and supervisors have attempted to correct Brian’s behavior on several occasions during his career,” streets manager Dan Pumphrey wrote in a July 2020 recommendation. “His disruptive behavior and conduct have not subsided, only taken time off.”

After a hearing before public works director Don Wick, Wick decided to fire Williams. Although his memorandum largely focused on the office outburst, Wick listed other incidents, as far back as 1996, in reciting Williams’ disciplinary history. Wick acknowledged Williams was a skilled and knowledgeable worker, but that Williams had taken no action to change his behavior through the years.

In his lawsuit, Williams alleged Pumphrey had made numerous ageist comments toward him, saying Williams was “falling apart,” asked him how old he was and when he planned to retire, and wondered if someone younger should be helping Williams.

Williams’ performance problems “were used as an excuse to cover the real reason for Mr. Pumphrey recommending termination – Mr. Williams was getting older, physically wearing out, and becoming a liability for the City,” his lawyers wrote. Williams was 56 at the time of his firing.

The city, in arguing for summary judgment, believed Wick was justified in terminating Williams for his conduct. It also pointed to statements Williams himself made in the course of the lawsuit.

“I have no idea about the age discrimination,” Williams said in a deposition. Although he added Pumphrey was the one who discriminated against him through his comments, “I don’t think Dan even knew himself – I mean, I think subconsciously he did, but I don’t think he deliberately came out and said those things to me.”

As for his ADA claim, Williams said, “I have no idea what the perceived disability was, because I had no disability.”

Wang concluded Wick’s stated reasons for termination were legitimate and nondiscriminatory. She found insufficient evidence to tie Pumphrey’s alleged comments suggesting Williams was too old to the later human resources investigation arising from the office outburst. Wang also pointed out Pumphrey himself was older than 40, as were the majority of public works employees.

“Respectfully, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not adduced evidence that Defendants believed he was disabled; indeed, his own testimony demonstrates that he is not, and that he is not sure what disability Defendants would have attributed to him,” she wrote.

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