Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

TVA worker’s disability, age bias suit reinstated

Reprints
disability

A federal district court, in a divided opinion, reversed a lower court on Wednesday and reinstated age and disability discrimination and retaliation charges filed by a Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear plant operator who was allegedly demoted because of ethical concerns.

Robert Bledsoe, who was appointed an instructor at a TVA training course in October 2016, took medical leave for a liver transplant in February 2017, according to the ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Robert Bledsoe v. Tennessee Valley Authority Board of Directors.

Shortly after his return to work, his supervisor began to comment on Mr. Bledsoe’s health and age, including saying things like, “I think your disability is slowing all this down…You’re really too old to be doing this.

After Mr. Bledsoe’s son was accepted to a training program that Mr. Bledsoe taught, a committee including the supervisor was formed to issue an ethics opinion on the matter. The committee voted to demote Mr. Bledsoe from his instructor position, resulting in a $28,000 annual salary decrease.

Mr. Bledsoe filed suit in U.S. District Court in Chattanooga, Tennessee, charging he was discriminated against based on his age and disability in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act and retaliation.

The district court granted the TVA summary judgment dismissing all claims, which a three-judge appeals court panel’s majority opinion reinstated.

“Reasonable alternatives to demotion,” which included transferring Mr. Bledsoe to another instructor position, “render it more likely – although not certain – that (the supervisor), rather than the ethical conflict, caused Bledsoe’s demotion. The jury, rather than the court, should decide which explanation seems more plausible,” the panel said, in reinstating Mr. Bledsoe’s charges and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion said, “All in all, the evidence is insufficient to show that (the supervisor) manipulated all three of his colleagues on the Committee.”

A spokesman for the TVA said in a statement that it “is currently reviewing the mixed decision of the 6th Circuit Court in this matter and considering future legal options.”

Mr. Bledsoe’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Last month, a federal appeals court reinstated an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a worker who was the alleged victim of a “relentless and ruthless” age-based harassment campaign, in a divided opinion.