Quote:
Originally Posted by
Naboozle 
Nor do you. However, the EEOC heard both sides and issued a finding favorable to Katz.
Only because what he said happened in fact did happen, with people getting promotions who were younger than him. They aren't saying anything about whether or not his accusation has any truth to it, only that his reasoning for that accusation did. No judgment either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Naboozle 
According to the story, the supervisor never noted any deficiency, but rather denied that Katz expressed an interest in promotion. The EEOC ruling suggests that the evidence was contrary to the supervisor's statements. If Katz was indeed passed over for cause, then the supervisor screwed up by not providing reasonable and supportable explanations. Ignoring a problem in hopes it will go away isn't a good management style and it can come back to bite you and your company in the ass. If performance is the issue -- document it.
Applying for a job might qualify for "expressing an interest" where you work, but where I work, expressing an interest is going beyond performance expectations alongside applying to the position. If his performance was just average, it would explain why the supervisor didn't document performance related issues while at the same time feeling like he wasn't expressing an interest like other people who applied. Then, if he was disgruntled about it, it could show up in his work ethic, and even be the cause of his being fired!
So the point remains: No judgment can be made at this time.