A new case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provides a useful reminder to employers about what is required to establish an age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and why a consistent performance evaluation process matters.

In the case, Mark Yacko v. General Motors Co., No. 25-3039 (6th Cir. 2026), the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment for General Motors against the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination.

Case Overview: Yacko v. General Motors

Mark Yacko, the plaintiff in this case, was a General Motors employee and Group Leader in the Maintenance Group. As part of a company‑wide cost‑cutting and staff‑reduction initiative, General Motors identified underperforming employees based on their performance.

The plaintiff received a rating of minus during his annual performance rating. A member of General Motors’ human resources team flagged the minus rating while identifying underperformers. The plaintiff and one other employee, who was also flagged as an underperformer, were terminated as a result of this program.

Mr. Yacko brought a case, claiming his termination was a result of age discrimination, along with some additional claims. In support of his age discrimination claim, Mr. Yacko pointed out that the employee chosen to fill the role after Mr. Yacko departed was seven years younger.

The district court granted summary judgment to General Motors. Mr. Yacko appealed the age discrimination claim to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.

General Motors Performance Rating System

Confusing Nine-Point Evaluation System

Before 2023, General Motors used a nine‑point numerical rating system for employee performance evaluations.

Mr. Yacko was able to skate through his previous evaluations mostly due to the poorly designed evaluation process. Most employees were unclear about what the numbers on the nine-point scale meant. One was not viewed as the worst rating, and nine was not viewed as the best rating. A majority of the employees received a rating of five due to confusion about what the numbers on the scale meant.

Still, under the nine-point rating system, Mr. Yacko received a four on this annual performance evaluation in 2022.

Change to Three-Point Rating System

General Motors discontinued using its nine-point rating system and instead pivoted to a three-point rating system. Under this new system, employees were either rated plus, minus, or par.

Under the new rating system, Mr. Yacko received a minus rating, and it was this minus rating that ultimately led to his termination from General Motors. Importantly, another employee who was fifteen years younger than Mr. Yacko also received a minus rating and was terminated at the same time.

Sixth Circuit Outlines Legal Standard for Age Discrimination Claims

The Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment for General Motors on the age discrimination claim because it determined that the age of Mr. Yacko’s replacement could not, without more evidence of age being a continuing factor in Mr. Yacko’s termination, establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination.

Four Elements of a Prima Facie Age Discrimination Claim

The Sixth Circuit noted four elements that a plaintiff must show to have a successful claim of workplace age discrimination. Those included:

1. They were older than 40 when the action occurred
2. The employment action taken was adverse to the plaintiff
3. They were qualified for the position from which they were terminated; and
4. They were replaced by someone outside the protected class or were treated less favorably than a similarly situated, non-protected employee.

Mr. Yacko was able to meet the first three elements; however, his case was unsuccessful at meeting the fourth.

The Court Determined Yacko’s Claim Failed for Three Reasons

There were three reasons, outlined by the Sixth Circuit, that caused Mr. Yacko to not be able to meet the fourth requirement.

No Evidence Age Played a Role in the Decision

The Sixth Circuit found that Mr. Yacko was unable to show, and did not allege, that age was a consideration in the decision-making process that resulted in his termination. There was no indication that there were age-related comments, age-based criteria, or even that age played any role in the performance evaluation process or the decision to terminate Mr. Yacko.

Insignificant Age Difference On Its Own

Mr. Yacko relied heavily on the fact that his replacement was younger, but the Sixth Circuit determined that the age difference between Mr. Yacko and his replacement was insignificant, on its own. A seven-year difference, without more, was not enough for the Sixth Circuit to find age discrimination.

Younger Employee Treated the Same

The Sixth Circuit found that the fact that the other individual who received the same minus performance rating and was terminated at the same time was fifteen years younger than Mr. Yacko. This fact undercut the claim that age was the reason for the termination decision. On the contrary, it strongly supported General Motors’ argument that it acted based on performance, not age.

Key Takeaway for Nevada Employers

Even though Nevada employers fall under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and not the Sixth Circuit, there is something important that they can learn from this case: courts are far less likely to infer discrimination when the employer can point to a consistent, well-documented process and a legitimate business reason for the decision.

Here, General Motors tied the termination decision to an evaluation tool (the plus/par/minus system) and applied that tool in the context of a cost-cutting and staff-reduction initiative. It could articulate a business rationale and show how the decision was made. That type of documentation matters because it helps establish that the decision was based on performance and business needs (not age) and it limits a plaintiff’s ability to argue that the stated reason is a pretext for discrimination.

No matter what the basis is for a wrongful termination claim, whether it is age or any other protected characteristic, a good evaluation process, well-documented performance evaluations, and a standard and objective process by which employment decisions are made are necessary elements to an effective defense.

By: Cara Sheehan, Esq.

• Next
• Previous