Last Updated on September 12, 2025 by MyHRConcierge

Age discrimination is on the rise in the workplace, and the data proves it. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), age discrimination charges jumped from 14,233 in 2023 to 16,223 in 2024- an increase of nearly 14% year-over-year. This trend is part of a broader surge in workplace discrimination filings, with 88,531 new charges reported in 2024, up from 88,794 the previous year. These statistics highlight the growing need for employers to understand the risks of age-related bias and implement practices that ensure compliance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The recent case of Kean v. Brinker International brings this issue into sharp focus. What started as the termination of a high-performing general manager at one of Chili’s most profitable restaurants evolved into a significant legal battle, with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals shining a spotlight on the dangers of vague termination justifications, inadequate documentation, and casual age-related remarks in the workplace.

Inside the Case: Background and Details

In 2018, Jeff L. Kean, a 59-year-old general manager, was abruptly terminated from his position at one of Chili’s top-performing restaurants in Nashville, Tennessee. Kean had dedicated years to the company, overseeing one of the most profitable locations in his region, consistently meeting or exceeding performance metric expectations.

According to Kean, the company’s reasoning for his termination was vague and subjective. Brinker International, the parent company of Chili’s, claimed that Kean simply wasn’t a cultural fit, and that he created a “toxic” culture and “did not live the Chili’s way.” The company quickly replaced him with a 33-year-old employee with no prior managerial experience- a move that raised immediate questions about whether his age had played a role in the decision.

Supporting Kean’s claims was a wealth of performance data and employee feedback. His restaurant consistently ranked near the top in key metrics such as sales, employee retention and guest satisfaction. His restraint also served as a training center for years for other managers. Despite these strong indicators of success, Brinker moved forward with his termination without producing concrete evidence of performance issues.

The Court’s Findings

Initially, the district court ruled in favor of Brinker, granting summary judgment on the basis that Kean had not provided enough direct evidence of age discrimination. However, Kean appealed, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals took a closer look at the evidence.

In its June 17, 2025 decision, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling in part, sending the case back for trial. The Sixth Circuit emphasized several key factors that raised genuine questions of fact. First, the court noted the stark age difference between Kean and his replacement, combined with the lack of managerial experience in the younger hire. Second, the company’s failure to preserve key documentation- including emails and personnel records– even after a litigation hold was issued, was deemed grossly negligent

The court also rejected Brinker’s reliance on the “honest belief rule,” a legal principle that can shield employers if they honestly but mistakenly believe in their reasons for termination. The Sixth Circuit found that the company failed to show that its decision-making process was thorough, documented and based on verifiable information. Without clear evidence to back up their claims, the court ruled that a jury should decide whether age bias played a role in Kean’s firing.

Lessons for Employers

This case is a powerful reminder that vague reasons like “culture fit” are insufficient when terminating an employee, particularly one with a strong performance record. Employers must ensure that employment decisions are supported by documented, objective evidence and consistent performance evaluations.

Equally important is the preservation of records. When litigation is anticipated, a company must immediately enforce a litigation hold to safeguard emails, reports and other key documents. Failure to do so can lead not only to sanctions but also to a significant loss of credibility in court. Aside from when litigation is anticipated, employers should be aware of both federal and state laws when it comes to governing how long an employer must hold on to employee personnel file documents.

Finally, organizations should pay close attention to workplace culture. Even casual or joking age-related remarks can provide evidence of bias, especially when paired with adverse employment actions. Managers and supervisors should be trained to recognize and avoid such language and to ensure that their decisions are based solely on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors.

The Bigger Picture

As the case moves back to the district court for trial, the outcome remains uncertain. However, the Sixth Circuit’s decision highlights an important truth for employers: age bias- whether overt or subtle- can be costly. Proper training, consistent documentation and a proactive approach to compliance with the ADEA are essential for minimizing risk and fostering an inclusive, equitable workplace.