No single justification for firing a 56-year old salesman likely would be sufficient to permit him to pursue his age discrimination suit, but a “string of questionable conduct” gives him the right to do so, an appeals court has ruled in reinstating his lawsuit.

Fifty-six-year old fire truck salesman John W. Mullin, II, who won salesman of the year award in 2008 and 2009, was fired by Aurora, Ill.-based Temco Machinery Inc. in May 2010, according to last week's ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in John W. Mullin v. Temco Machinery Inc..

At the time of his firing, he again was leading the company in sales.

Several days before the company fired Mr. Mullin, it fired another sales associate who was in his 50s, according to the ruling. The same day it fired the other associate, it hired a 24-year-old; and around the same time, it also hired a 29-year-old, neither of whom was experienced. Mr. Mullin was told he was being fired because the company was paying him too much for his sales.

Mr. Mullin filed an age discrimination suit, and the federal court in Indianapolis granted Temco summary judgment in 2012 dismissing the case.

However, in its unanimous ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit reinstated the suit.

%%BREAK%%

“Of course, companies must be able to fire and hire employees. But in this case, a highly experienced and relatively successful salesman was fired at precisely the time the company hired two 'very inexperienced' men who had never been in sales,” the appeals court said.

Among other incidents detailed in the ruling, the company said Mr. Mullin allegedly had failed to show up to work one day, “leaving several visitors to wander around the plant unsupervised.” But “the visitors each gave depositions confirming that Mullin was with them at all times and gave them a good tour,” said the ruling.

“Standing alone, none of these incidents, events or alleged justifications would likely suffice for Mullin to survive summary judgment,” the appeals court panel ruled. “In combination, however, they point to a string of questionable conduct, from the suspicious timing of personnel decisions to ambiguous statements about age to multiple seemingly inaccurate allegations.”

Mr. Mullin “has put forth sufficient evidence that the jury should resolve the many material factual questions, as well as the credibility issues underlying them,” the appeals court ruled.