Reference no: EM131705964

Question: Giles Parkinson had been Chief General Counsel for Cordmaker, Inc. for a number of years. He was nearly sixty years old. After experiencing financial difficulties and a severe downturn in business, Cordmaker eliminated Parkinson's position and informed him that he was being terminated. Most of his duties were reassigned to other employees, including a thirty-seven-year-old attorney. Parkinson informed the board of directors of Cordmaker that he believed their decision to fire him was illegal and that he would file suit. Parkinson was then placed on a leave of absence and paid full salary for six months and 70 percent of his salary for three months thereafter.

He requested that he be able to use his former office, and the company's phones and computers, to conduct a job search but was barred from using any company facilities. Parkinson filed suit under the ADEA and the New York Human Rights Law, alleging that Cordmaker had discriminated against him because of his age and had retaliated against him for complaining of age discrimination by denying him use of company facilities. How should the court rule on his suit? Explain your answer. See Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co. [108 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 1997)].