EEOC: Selected Pending And Resolved Age Discrimination In Employment Act Cases

AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES RESOLVED:

2011

Minnesota Dept. of Corrections: Case No. 10-2699 (8th Cir.) decision issued 8/10/11 – Defendant appealed district court’s grant of summary judgment to the EEOC, concluding as a matter of law that Defendant’s retirement plan arbitrarily discriminates against older employees on the basis of age, in violation of the ADEA. Eighth Circuit affirmed district court decision holding that an early retirement incentive program, creating an “age 55 cliff” that prevented employees retiring after age 55 from receiving early retirement benefits, facially discriminated against older employees on the basis of age. Court further held that ADEA’s “safe-harbor” provision that insulates an employer from ADEA liability so long as its early retirement incentive program is voluntary and consistent with the relevant purposes of the ADEA did not apply in this case. After appellate decision, case settled for just under $2 million. (See page 4 above).

2010

Baltimore County: Case No. 09-1688 (4th Cir.) decision issued 6/25/10 – The Commission appealed district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Defendant and finding that disparate contribution rates under the Employee Retirement System (ERS) were based on number of years employee contributed until reaching retirement age, along with corresponding time value of money. Fourth Circuit held that fact issue existed as to whether contribution rates were justified by permissible financial considerations or whether the rates expressly rely on age. Thus, district court’s order was reversed and case remanded.

TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple-Inland.: Case No. 08-16749 (9th Cir.) decision issued 6/14/10 – The Commission appealed the district court’s decision granting Defendant summary judgment. The Commission alleged that TIN unlawfully terminated a class of employees due to their age. The district court held that age-related comments made by the employer were not direct evidence of age discrimination and analyzed the case under theMcDonnell Douglas framework. As such, the district court judge noted that the Commission could not prove that TIN’s reasons for terminating the employees were pretext for age discrimination. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded to the lower court because there were factual issues precluding summary judgment. After the appellate decision, TIN settled the case for $250,000.

2009

Exxon Mobil Corp.: (5th Cir.) decision issued 8/27/09 – The Commission appealed the district court’s decision granting Defendant summary judgment. The Commission alleged that Exxon Mobil violated the ADEA when it terminated pilots who had turned 60 because the now-repealed Age 60 Rule applied only to commercial pilots. The Fifth Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

University of Louisiana: Case No. 08-30327 (5th Cir.) decision issued on 2/9/09 – Defendant filed interlocutory appeal from district court decision holding that Eleventh Amendment did not bar the EEOC’s lawsuit against the University under the ADEA. Fifth circuit upheld district court decision and further held that Eleventh Amendment does not bar the EEOC from seeking make-whole relief for the benefit of complainant, rejecting defendant’s argument that since private party is barred from suing University directly the Commission should not be allowed to seek make-whole relief on his behalf.

2008

Kentucky Retirement Systems: 554 U.S. 135 (2008) – SCOTUS ruled that Kentucky’s disability retirement system did not violate the ADEA, even though age is an explicit factor in calculating benefits for at least some workers overturning 6th Cir. Kentucky’s system was not “actually motivated” by bias against older workers but was instead organized around the “analytically distinct” concept of “pension status.” Crt. held that when a retirement plan conditions pension eligibility on age but then discriminates on the basis of pension status, an ADEA plaintiff must show that the disparate treatment was “actually motivated” by age itself rather than pension status.

2006

City of Independence, Mo: Case No. 05-4489 (4th Cir.) decision issued 12/22/06

The Commission appealed district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Defendant. The Commission alleged that charging party was disqualified from Defendant’s Leave Donation Program because of his age which ultimately resulted in his constructive discharge. Fourth Circuit reversed the district court decision finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to what the employer supposed about age, since there was direct evidence that management officials disqualified charging party because of his age. Fourth Circuit denied appeal as to constructive discharge case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

• Celebrating the Resilience of Low-Income Women
• CEOs Get to Retire Comfortably. Workers Like Me Deserve the Same.
• Jobs Increased 339,000 In May, Unemployment Up 0.3% To 3.7%
• The decline of job creation at new establishments
• Contractor faces 2 serious citations after US Department of Labor finds safety failures led to welder’s death at Bonner Bridge demolition project