One of the complexities of anti-discrimination law is that the employee does not always prevail even if the basic elements of an apparent case of discrimination are established. Once the basic elements of a case of discrimination are shown, the employer may still come forward with evidence to show that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employer’s actions.

   The employer in this case was able to demonstrate to the court that it was necessary to carry out a reduction in force because of the legitimate need to cut costs. In fact, in this case, the employee in question was not replaced with a younger worker taking over his position. His position was abolished, and the duties of his position were divided up and added to the duties of other existing employees who did not lose their jobs in the force reduction, albeit considerably younger employees. This factor helped to convince the court that there was no intent to discriminate against this individual, but rather a legitimate need to abolish his position in order to cut employee costs.

   Another wrinkle in this case is that it was brought under state law rather than Federal law. It is important for employers and workers alike to recognize that the substance of Federal and state law are basically the same around the U.S. State laws outlaw discrimination, but the state courts often look, as the North Dakota court did, to Federal court decisions to define exactly what is and what is not covered by employment discrimination.