Yet another victory for a South Carolina employee yesterday, as a Greenville federal jury came back with a $400,000 verdict against BASF—a German company that is also the world’s largest chemical producer—for age discrimination against its current employee, William Smith. [Read the Jury Verdict Form here]
The jury also found “willfulness” in BASF’s discriminatory acts, meaning that $400,000 for lost wages and benefits will be “liquidated” (or doubled) to $800,000 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In addition, the successful plaintiff’s attorney, Brian Murphy of Stevenson Murphy in Greenville, will also be seeking his attorney’s fees and costs, which will likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What Was the Basis of the Age Discrimination Claim?
The employee, William Smith, worked at BASF’s Seneca, SC plant since 2000. At the time of the events given rise to the lawsuit, he was 58 years old. In 2022, he applied for a higher level role as North America Metal Controller (NAMC) that had been recently opened due to another retirement. He and one younger employee applied for the role. After an interview process, BASF chose the younger employee, who had only worked there for a year at that time.
Now, on its own, that fact alone likely wouldn’t be enough to prove age discrimination. However, the hiring manager, Sherina Larrier, told Mr. Smith at the end of the interview process that they hired the other younger employee “because he brought a more updated, fresher approach to the position. He brought a more youthful energy to the position. He was quicker, more agile at—[Larrier] thought he would be more quicker [sic] and agile at handling the tasks of the job.” She also said she didn’t think he could handle several components of the new job.
These sorts of comments are what we call “direct evidence” of discriminatory intent. Most of the time, employers aren’t dumb enough to utter every single thought in their heads, especially when it comes to why they picked the white employee over the black employee, the male employee over the female, or the younger employee over the older one. This means that we have to prove age discrimination in other circumstantial ways, such as showing that the chosen employee is far less qualified for the role, lacks a required degree, or show the employer’s proffered reason for the decision is otherwise completely false.
But every once in a while, the employer slips up and says the quiet part out loud. In this case, the hiring manager’s comments about the decision came right after the decision was made and were about Mr. Smith’s age.
How Did BASF Address the Direct Evidence Argument?
In response, the company argued that the hiring manager’s comments didn’t matter because she wasn’t the actual decision maker. A whole committee, BASF argued, made the decision to hire the younger employee, and the other members of the committee didn’t make any explicitly age-conscious comments. BASF almost won on this case last year with that argument during a motion called “summary judgment,” where the company argued that the case should be dismissed and never see a jury at all. The magistrate judge agreed with BASF and recommended that the district trial judge dismiss the case. However, after a hearing, the district trial judge disagreed and denied BASF’s motion, setting this case up for trial.
Ultimately, the trial lasted eight days before jury deliberations even started. A few hours into deliberations, the jury appeared deadlocked, so the judge gave the jury what’s called an “Allen Charge,” a standard charge where the judge encourages the jury to discuss the case further and try to come to a resolution without compromising their beliefs about the case. After a good night’s sleep, the jury returned within a few hours and handed the victory to Mr. Smith and his counsel, Brian Murphy.
BASF still faces two other cases by Mr. Smith related to another failure to promote matter and retaliation, so unless a settlement is reached, BASF will be back in the courtroom sometime soon for another round.
Takeaways for South Carolina Employees
This federal jury verdict is the latest in a string of employee victories across South Carolina, including Mr. Murphy’s earlier $5.1 million verdict against BMW back in February 2026. But we’ve also seen a verdict for FMLA retaliation against Spartanburg Community College, another against Prisma Health for abuse of process, and another multimillion verdict against a repossession company in Florence County for race discrimination.
Of course, not every employment claim is likely to result in a million dollar South Carolina age discrimination verdict. But these examples do show that South Carolina juries recognize unfair and illegal conduct by employers and are willing to hold companies to account for their actions.
For South Carolina employees, it’s important to remember your legal rights in these types of situations. Take notes of discriminatory acts. Gather evidence where possible. And speak to a South Carolina age discrimination lawyer about your situation so you can best prepare your potential claim. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against based on your age or any other protected category (race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability), then feel free to call my office at (864) 278-5389 or via our Contact Us page.
