Tommy Sharp was an electrical and instrumentation (E&I) designer for Aker Plant Services Group. Sharp began working for Aker as a contract employee in 2003, and then as a full-time employee in 2005. In 2008 and 2009, several Aker employeesincluding Sharpwere laid off because Aker's customers canceled or postponed many of their projects. Sharp, who was 52 years old at the time, contended that he was fired because of his age. In particular, Sharp pointed to comments allegedly made sometime before June 2006 by the site manager, Mike Hudson, about the advancing age of the design group 363 and the need to bring in younger people. Aker insisted that its layoff decisions were based on performance, not age. However, Hudson later wrote a letter of recommendation that described Sharp as a "key member of our design group at the Louisville site," attributed his layoff to "recent economic conditions," represented that he "performed all the tasks given him at a high level," certified that he "strives for an error free construction project," and unequivocally "recommended Tom" as an "E&I Designer."3

Does Hudson's letter of recommendation provide evidence of pretext on the part of Aker (i.e., that the decision to lay off Sharp was not performance based)? Explain and support your answer.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Hudsons letter of recommendation could potentially provide evidence of pretext on the part of Aker r... View the full answer