It may have been a television sitcom about nothing, but a workplace conversation about a scene from “Seinfeld” probably contributed to a recent Federal Court ruling in Maine that has kept alive a former employee’s discrimination lawsuit against International Paper.  In December, U.S. Magistrate Judge Margaret Kravchuk denied IP’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the claim of Plaintiff Gary Webber, who asserted his position was eliminated due to his disability and his age. 
Since 1983, Webber worked in various capacities at International Paper.  In 1987, he was promoted to associate engineer although he did not possess an engineering degree.  Webber worked in various capacities at International Paper; during 1998 through June 2000, however, he worked as a project engineer.  His duties included overseeing various construction projects, redesigning the accounting departments, purchasing heavy machinery and parking lot maintenance.

In 1997, Webber suffered a knee injury at work.  He received an accommodation at work for this injury including leave time, modifications in his work schedule, and working from home.  International Paper also installed a “stairway lift chair” to assist Webber in getting to the engineering office.  Webber’s first- and second-line supervisors, Larry Schaub and Steve Moser, referred to this chair as the “Costanza chair” ostensibly alluding to an episode of the television sitcom “Seinfeld” in which the character George Costanza fakes a disability. 

In February 2001, Webber underwent a total knee replacement for his injured knee.  Webber returned to work in April or May of that year.  His physical restrictions included limited walking and standing, no lifting more than 25 pounds, and limited squatting or kneeling.  Webber was re-evaluated by his physician at the end of May.  His doctor restricted his work hours to four hours per day, four days per week.  He received permission from his employer for this new schedule.

In June, International Paper sought a reduction in force of 3000 positions within various locations and departments.  International Paper’s manufacturing director and two other directors, who were unfamiliar with Webber, were tasked with eliminating eight of 47 technical staff positions.  Plaintiff was one of two project engineers who lost their positions.  Webber’s supervisors – Schaub and Moser – agreed with the manufacturing director’s decision to terminate Webber.  Of those project engineers who remained, two were older than Plaintiff.  Webber filed his Complaint.

International Paper filed for summary judgment asserting that Webber was not disabled and that his termination was not due to alleged disability.  The court disagreed.  Under a McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis, it reasoned that Webber had made out a prima facie case that he suffered an adverse employment action and that he met the threshold for disability under the Maine Human Rights Act.  The court stated that International Paper perceived Webber as disabled in the life activity of walking in that it gave him workplace accommodations, a special chair lift, and reduced his work schedule.  In addition, it approved Webber’s application for long-term disability benefits, which the court reasoned was prima facie evidence that International Paper regarded Webber as disabled.  The court also determined that although International Paper had articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Webber’s termination, Webber was able to show that this reason was pretext.  As part of this showing, Webber asserted that the chair lift accommodation and the reference by supervisors to the “Costanza chair” was sufficient to defeat International Paper’s summary judgment.  The court stated, “[a]lthough this characterization could be interpreted in different ways by the jury, one legitimate inference would be that this characterization was derisive toward Webber and related to what Schaub and Moser perceived as a physical disability.”  Accordingly, summary judgment was denied.
This case demonstrates that employers must be diligent and thorough when terminating employees through a reduction in force.  The upper-level manager in charge of the reduction relied upon Webber’s supervisors to confirm information supporting Webber’s reduction.  All managers must ensure that the reasons for termination are legitimate, not based on protected status, and are otherwise beyond reproach.  Certainly the “Costanza chair” comment alone was not sufficient to defeat summary judgment, but it contributed toward Plaintiff’s evidence that International Paper’s reasons for terminating him was pretext. 
As an historical footnote with virtually no value as legal precedent, the most notorious lawsuit linked to the sitcom is the 1997 Wisconsin case still referred to as the “Seinfeld” case.  In that case, Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing, a manager at Miller Brewing was terminated after engaging in workplace water cooler banter about an episode that revolved around Jerry Seinfeld’s companion’s name that rhymed with a female body part.