New trial ordered for former Macomb County employee who sued for age discrimination – Macomb Daily

The state Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a former Macomb County employee who claims she resigned in 2017 after being retaliated against by her boss for alleged age discrimination.

Pamela Tudor, who works at the county’s Community Corrections, won a new trial request last week in an appeals court because an expert was allowed to testify at a 2022 trial that certain exchanges involving Tudor and her supervisor, Barbara Caskey, did not constitute discrimination. The panel ruled 3-0 that the expert reached legal conclusions that the judge should not have allowed and influenced the jury enough to tip the case in favor of the defendant, Macomb County.

In May 2022, a jury found “no cause of action” on Tudor’s $1.2 million claim after a hearing in Macomb Civil Court in Mount Clemens.

The labor relations expert was Karen Bathanti, a former human resources director for Macomb County who left in 2018 and now works as a professor. Bathanti testified about several instances of alleged bias during questioning by a county attorney. The appeals court says Judge Julie Gatti should not have allowed the testimony, which Tudor’s attorney objects to.

“Bathanti’s challenged testimony exceeded the scope of permissible testimony, and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it,” the appellate judges wrote in an 11-page opinion. “Instead of outlining the relevant policies, Bathanti testified about whether specific alleged exchanges between Tudor and Caskey constituted discrimination, and that testimony was repeatedly presented in the form of a legal conclusion. Bathanti’s testimony intruded upon the jury’s jurisdiction.”

Tudor contends the bias began when Caskey was hired as director of Community Corrections in 2013, and Tudor, 46, worked as a pretrial expert.

Barbara Caskey seen at the Macomb County Board of Commissioners meeting in 2023. IMAGE FROM THE MACOMB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VIDEO

“Tudor testified that when Caskey became a manager, he displayed hostility and prejudice toward older employees in the office,” according to the judges. “Tudor frequently described Caskey’s attitude toward him as ‘condescending,’ and said that in contrast, Caskey was attentive and friendly to younger employees in the office. Furthermore, Tudor testified that Caskey failed to discipline other younger employees, even when they made the same or similar mistakes.”

In addition to Tudor, two other older employees testified that they “had problematic interactions with Caskey,” according to the opinion.

The judges noted that Caskey, in his defense, said Tudor had been disciplined for his job performance and that “other employees did not have as many performance issues as Tudor.”

The situation “reached a critical point” in March 2017, when “Caskey and an armed law enforcement officer escorted Tudor out of the building the day after Tudor and (another employee) contacted human resources to raise concerns about Caskey’s age discrimination” and “only brought up the alleged performance deficiencies a week later,” according to the opinion.

“(Tudor) felt humiliated by this experience and was ultimately forced to resign because Caskey’s treatment of him in the office was intolerable. Tudor testified that he was pressured to resign because of his age or that he faced ongoing harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Tudor testified that no one had ever brought up the allegations of poor performance with him until he received Caskey’s letter.”

Caskey responded by saying that he took action against Tudor because he had received phone calls from two sellers who told him they were unable to reach him and that he needed to take immediate action.

The defense also noted that Tudor did not have the benefit of taking his case to a Loudermill (due process) hearing or arbitration when he was disciplined.

Still, “given the timing of these events and the corroboration of testimony regarding Caskey’s disparate treatment, this evidence was sufficient to establish that the allegations of deficient performance were pretextual,” the judges wrote.

At trial, Bathanti’s testimony “not only affected the potential weight the jury gave to her testimony, but also the jury’s perspective on the facts of the case, which Bathanti testified to as a firsthand witness” because she helped establish the county’s hiring policies.

The judges also criticize Judge Gatti for failing to give the jury “oral instructions about the age discrimination and retaliation elements.” This exacerbated the error of admitting Bathanti’s testimony and its effect on the jury.

The judges noted that both sides “presented a significant amount of evidence refuting each other’s versions of events and therefore the jury must decide the case by weighing the credibility of the witnesses.”

The jury members were Anica Letica, Kristina Robinson Garrett and Kathleen A. Feeney

Community Corrections, which has about 26 employees, is described by the county as “a community-based sanctions and rehabilitation program that aims to alleviate jail and prison overcrowding through court-approved pre- and post-sentence alternatives.”