Listen to this post

As a reminder, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from retaliating against applicants or employees who oppose age discrimination, file a charge of discrimination under the statute, or testify, assist, or participate an investigation or proceeding under the ADEA.

On March 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered a consent decree resolving a lawsuit against Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company, a global recreational gear company, alleging that Amer engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of the ADEA.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Ian Decker, a 50‑year‑old former territory manager for wholesale accounts at Amer, alleged that Amer retaliated against him after he repeatedly complained to management and human resources about perceived age discrimination during an organizational restructuring. Decker had more than 27 years of experience in the recreational gear industry and held multiple sales and marketing roles over the course of his career.

According to the lawsuit, following Amer’s acquisition by an investor group in 2019, the company underwent a reorganization that eliminated the traditional wholesale intermediary between manufacturers and retail stores. Under the new model, brand manufacturers were permitted to sell directly to retail locations.

As a part of this restructuring, Decker’s division was moved under the retail division. Furthermore, Amer created new leadership positions in the retail division that were placed between territory managers and senior leadership, resulting in Decker reporting to the newly created leadership role. Decker alleged that this position was never posted, and he was not given an opportunity to apply.

After speaking with other territory managers who were close to his age, Decker learned that they had experienced similar changes and were likewise excluded from consideration for the newly created leadership roles. Decker alleged that Amer placed younger, less experienced employees in the newly created leadership roles without posting the positions or giving older, more experienced employees the opportunity to apply.

Decker attempted to raise his concerns to his regional director, asserting that Amer’s staffing decisions reflected age discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that the regional director dismissed his concerns and advised him to mentor his new supervisor and help him learn about the wholesale side of the industry. Decker further alleged that the regional director warned him against escalating his concerns to human resources and implied that doing so could jeopardize his employment.

Despite these warnings, Decker reported his concerns to human resources on January 17, 2020. Decker alleged that shortly thereafter he was contacted by Amer’s global vice president, who told him that he could either “get onboard” with the restructuring or leave the company. Nonetheless, Decker reiterated his concerns to human resources. Less than six weeks later, in March 2020, Amer terminated Decker’s employment.

Procedural History

On September 28, 2020, Decker filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Amer discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the ADEA. The EEOC investigated the charge.

On March 6, 2024, exactly two years before the entry of this consent decree, the EEOC issued a determination letter finding reasonable cause to believe that Amer retaliated against Decker for asserting his rights under the ADEA. The parties then engaged in conciliation efforts at the EEOC’s invitation, but those efforts were unsuccessful. As a result, on July 31, 2024, the EEOC issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation.

On September 24, 2024, the EEOC issued Decker a notice of right to sue, and he filed his complaint the following day, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA. Decker’s complaint alleged, among other things, that Amer failed to investigate his age discrimination complaints and terminated him shortly after he engaged in a protected activity.

On October 23, 2024, the EEOC filed its own lawsuit against Amer, alleging retaliation under the ADEA. On January 2, 2025, the EEOC moved to consolidate the two cases, and the court granted that request on May 8, 2025.

***

Amer agreed to settle the consolidated action by paying $350,000 in monetary relief. In addition, the consent decree required Amer to provide targeted equitable relief, including, among other things, conducting manager and employee training, and reviewing and revising the company’s equal employment opportunity and anti‑retaliation policies.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case highlights the heightened risk of retaliation claims associated with workforce reorganizations and structural changes. Employers should consider the following best practices:

  • Adopt and maintain a comprehensive equal employment opportunity policy that clearly states:
    • The company’s commitment to compliance with all federal, state, and local employment laws, including prohibitions against age discrimination;
    • Clear procedures for reporting concerns or policy violations;
    • The company’s commitment to conducting prompt and thorough investigations of complaints, including outlining procedures for internal investigations and corrective actions; and
    • A strict prohibition against retaliation for raising concerns or participating in investigations.
  • Ensure transparency in hiring and promotion processes, particularly during reorganizations, by posting available positions and providing qualified employees an opportunity to apply.
  • Train managers and human resources personnel on appropriately handling discrimination complaints, including investigation procedures, documentation practices, confidentiality obligations, and follow‑up actions.
  • Promptly investigate all complaints of discrimination or retaliation and take corrective action where warranted.
  • Avoid conduct that could be perceived as retaliatory, including discouraging employees from raising concerns or suggesting negative employment consequences for doing so.

All employers, particularly those navigating reorganizations or leadership restructurings, should take proactive steps to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws and reduce risks associated with litigation.