A federal court has allowed a former Bombardier Learjet engineer to proceed with an age discrimination lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), but dismissed his accompanying retaliation claim, finding no evidence that decision-makers knew about the employee’s internal complaint prior to his termination.
In a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court found there were factual disputes that could allow a jury to conclude that M.W., who was 59 when he was dismissed in 2016, was fired because of his age. M.W. had worked as a Principal Engineer Specialist (PES) at Learjet’s Wichita, Kansas, flight test facility after being recalled to the role from a layoff.
He was terminated less than two weeks after filing an internal age discrimination complaint with Bombardier’s compliance office.
While the court said the retaliation claim could not proceed, it found enough circumstantial evidence—combined with alleged ageist remarks from senior leaders—to support M.W.’s claim that his age was a motivating factor in his termination.
Engineer removed during performance plan
After working on Learjet’s L85 design program, which was shut down in 2015, M.W. was recalled to work at the Bombardier Flight Test Center (BFTC). He was assigned to propulsion systems and designated as a Design Authority on the C-Series aircraft due to his senior-level expertise.
In 2016, he was appointed team “focal” for the power plant group. That designation did not change his compensation or duties but carried added responsibility for organizing workflow. His supervisor at the time, D.M., later removed him from that role, citing workflow issues and delays in processing technical documents.
In June 2016, M.W. was placed on a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP focused on his use of the company’s Task Management System (TMS), requiring him to achieve an 85 percent completion rate. According to the plan, he had averaged 55 percent, compared to a team average of 80 percent.
Though M.W. disputed the accuracy of the data, the court noted there were genuine factual disagreements between the parties over whether he refused to use the system or had been making progress.
“Four weeks into the 90-day PIP, Plaintiff was starting to make progress in populating TMS, and his direct supervisor was adding more deliverables to his list,” the court wrote.
Disputed incident leads to termination
A critical point in the case involved a pre-flight discrepancy on July 27, 2016, regarding engine thrust ratings. While M.W. had signed off on documentation that rated the engines at 23,000 pounds of thrust (23K), the flight plan required 25K. The flight was canceled as a result.
Two days later, manager J.A. emailed human resources to request that the PIP be ended early and that M.W. be terminated for cause, citing the thrust rating error as further proof of ongoing performance concerns.
“Allan made the decision to terminate Plaintiff because he regarded this incident as a safety violation,” the court noted.
M.W. argued he was not the one who made the final thrust decision, and said others—including the colleague who assigned the task—were not disciplined. He also pointed out that company policy required a safety investigation process, which was not followed in this case.
“No investigation was done by a safety committee for the thrust configuration issue,” the court stated.
The court found that while Bombardier had a legitimate reason for the termination—citing performance concerns and the thrust issue—M.W. raised enough questions about the process and treatment to avoid summary dismissal of the discrimination claim.
“There are disputed issues as to Plaintiff’s performance and whether it was improving,” the court wrote. “Furthermore, Plaintiff presents evidence that other individuals were involved in the thrust configuration issue, but nobody else was disciplined.”
Age bias evidence admissible as circumstantial
The court declined to treat age-related comments by senior leaders as direct evidence of discrimination, but permitted them to be used as circumstantial support. M.W. alleged that the director and vice president of the BFTC made presentations about reducing the average age of the workforce, and that his supervisor once referred to him as “one of those old guy shop teachers.”
While such remarks were not closely tied to the decision to terminate M.W., they could contribute to an inference of age bias when considered with other facts, the court found.
“Plaintiff presents some evidence of ageist comments by upper management… Both of these comments may not be related to Plaintiff’s termination… But these statements, along with disputes of material fact… raise an inference of discrimination.”
Retaliation claim dismissed due to lack of knowledge
M.W.’s retaliation claim was dismissed, with the court finding no evidence that those who terminated him knew about his internal EEO complaint when they made the decision.
Although the timing—he filed the complaint on July 23, 2016, and was terminated on August 3—suggested close proximity, the court said it was not enough.
“There is no evidence… that the decisionmaker—Allan—was aware of Plaintiff’s complaint until after Plaintiff’s termination,” the court ruled.
Without that knowledge, no causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action could be established. Even if M.W. had shown a link, the court said he failed to present evidence that the stated reason for his termination was pretext for retaliation.
For more information, see Wood et al v. Learjet, Inc. et al, No. 2:2018cv02621 – Document 259 (D. Kan. 2025).
