Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jankovich v. Exelon Corp.
Citation: 73 F. App'x 881Docket: No. 03-1536
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 19, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Mona Jankovich was terminated from Commonwealth Edison Co. (ComEd) just before her 30th work anniversary, at the age of 49, after receiving two consecutive poor performance ratings. ComEd cited these ratings as the reason for her dismissal, while Jankovich alleged that her firing was due to age discrimination and her approaching eligibility for enhanced pension and severance benefits. She filed lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against both ComEd and its parent company, Exelon. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Jankovich failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of age discrimination or that ComEd’s stated reason for her termination—two consecutive "C" ratings—was a pretext for discrimination. The court noted Jankovich did not meet ComEd's legitimate performance expectations, as evidenced by coworker complaints, nor could she prove that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. Additionally, her ERISA claim was also dismissed, although she only appealed the summary judgment concerning her age discrimination claim. Jankovich failed to present evidence of discrimination using the direct method and instead relied on the indirect method established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under this method, a plaintiff must demonstrate four criteria: 1) being at least 40 years old, 2) meeting the employer's legitimate expectations, 3) suffering an adverse employment action, and 4) being treated less favorably than similarly situated younger employees. While Jankovich claimed she met ComEd's legitimate expectations and cited a similarly situated employee who was not fired, the court ruled that the assessment focuses on performance at the time of termination, not past evaluations. Despite her history of satisfactory reviews, evidence showed that after her 1999 transfer, she received multiple complaints regarding her work, indicating she did not meet ComEd’s expectations at the time of her firing. Regarding the comparison with younger employee Anka Knezevic, the court noted that the single complaint against Knezevic was minor and involved a complex project assigned to an inexperienced employee, while Jankovich faced numerous serious complaints. The court concluded that the employees were not similarly situated due to the disparity in the nature and severity of the complaints. Consequently, Jankovich failed to demonstrate an error in the court's analysis of her prima facie case, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment without the need to address the issue of pretext.