In 2008, plaintiff James Sappington, 50, a production supervisor for an aerospace adhesive and sealant company, was terminated from where he worked for 27 years. His employer was originally called Dexter and then Loctite. In 2000, the company was bought and renamed the Henkel Corp. Sappington claimed that he was terminated from employment by Henkel in 2008 due to his age and in violation of public policy. Sappington sued Henkel Corp. He alleged that the company failed to prevent discrimination, and that its actions constituted age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Sappington claimed that his bosses made age-related derogatory remarks, including statements that the older employees “didn’t get it” and that changes could be made with newer, younger employees. He also claimed that the company had a pattern of terminating, laying-off or otherwise getting rid of older employees, while hiring and transferring in younger employees. Sappington alleged that after his termination, his prior position was first offered to a 27-year-old employee, who turned it down, and then Henkel hired a 25 year old to do his job. Regarding his termination, Sappington claimed that Henkel’s alleged issues with his performance were false, taken completely out of context and unsupported. He also claimed that the defendant failed to follow its progressive discipline process and failed to show him the alleged poor decisions he had made. Henkel denied discriminating against Sappington in any way and contended that his termination was solely performance related. It also contended that there were many documented incidents (approximately 25 occurrences) and problems involving Sappington’s work, decision-making and judgment. Henkel claimed that oral meetings were subsequently held with Sappington to discuss placing him on a Performance Improvement Plan, and he was changed from a night shift to a day shift in order to ensure resources were available to him. Hankel claimed that after the meetings, Sappington again made decisions he no longer had the authority to make and that his conduct was contrary to the terms of the Performance Improvement Plan that was being drafted. It further claimed that the incident following the Performance Improvement Plan meeting was the final straw and that it led to Sappington’s termination. Sappington responded that during the meeting, he was given the ultimatum of resigning or taking the Performance Improvement Plan. However, he claimed that Henkel had prepared and presented a severance plan, but did not have a prepared Performance Improvement Plan. Thus, he claimed that there was no “oral meetings to address concerns.”, Sappington claimed he was out of work for three and a half months after being terminated and had to take a job with lesser pay and benefits. He also claimed that he suffered emotional distress after being fired, resulting in sleeplessness, nervousness and stomach pain. However, he alleged that he could not afford therapy. Thus, Sappington sought recovery of $989,000 in damages for his past and future lost earnings in regards to back pay and reduced salary and benefits. He also sought recovery of emotional distress damages and punitive damages for the defendant’s malice and oppression. Defense counsel argued that Sappington was terminated for legitimate business reasons and, as such, was owed zero economic damages. Counsel further argued that Sappington did not suffer any emotional distress, had not pursued treatment, and had insurance to cover any alleged treatment from his new employer.