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

EEOC AMICUS BRIEFS

AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES PENDING:

2012

Fried v. LVI Services, Inc.: (2nd Cir.) filed 3/5/2012 – The Commission filed brief to clarify the application of the “stray remarks” doctrine to evidence of employment discrimination. The Commission argues that the district court erred in characterizing an explicitly age-biased remark, made by the decision maker within a month of the plaintiff’s termination, as a “stray remark” and not probative of age discrimination. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not ruled on the case.

AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES RESOLVED:

2012

Robinson v. City of Philadelphia: (3rd Cir.) filed 1/24/12, decision 7/13/12 – The Commission filed brief to clarify the impact of the Court’s holding in Gross on the ADEA. The Commission argued that the district court did not use the appropriate standard for determining a violation of the ADEA. It argued that Gross does not require that plaintiff prove that age was the “sole” reason for the challenged adverse employment decision. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling, it did note that the district court used the “but-for cause” standard, and not the “sole” reason standard, when reconsidering the partial grant of summary judgment.

Marcus v. PQ Corp.: (3rd Cir.) filed 9/6/11, decision 1/19/12 – The Commission filed brief to clarify the impact of the Court’s decisions in Gross and Staub on the ADEA. First, the Commission argued that Gross and Staubdo not disturb the Third Circuit’s Court of Appeals precedent permitting a plaintiff to use subordinate bias, or “cat’s paw,” theory of liability to prove a violation of the ADEA. Second, Gross does not disturb the Third Circuit’s view that a plaintiff may establish an ADEA violation by showing that the victim’s age was the but-for cause of the contested adverse employment action, even if his/her age was not the sole cause of the adverse employment action. Third Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case to district court. Further, the court held that Gross and Staub do not preclude the “cat’s paw” theory in ADEA cases. Additionally, Third Circuit noted that Gross does not preclude the use of but-for causation in age discrimination cases. Issue on remand related to damages.

2011

Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc.: (5th Cir.) filed 11/8/2010, decision 9/12/11 – The Commission filed brief to correct the district court’s erroneous application of the standards for finding an actionable hostile work environment under the ADEA. Fifth circuit, addressing an issue of first impression, reversed the district court’s decision and held that Plaintiff could advance a claim of hostile work environment under the ADEA. Fifth Circuit further held that there were genuine issues of material fact with regard to the hostile work environment claim under ADEA and Title VII as well as Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim. Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Mitchell-White v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.: (2nd Cir.) filed 5/24/11, decision 10/21/11 – The Commission filed brief asserting that Northwest’s age-65-trigger for the company’s pension plan is facially discriminatory. The Commission argued that the trigger deprives older workers of a benefit that younger workers receive based solely on the particular worker’s age and violates the ADEA. Additionally, the Commission argued that the district court misapplied the Court’s ruling in Kentucky Retirement Services because the differential treatment in this case was not based on pension status. Second Circuit affirmed the district court ruling granting summary judgment for the airline.

2010

Aldridge v. City of Memphis: (6th Cir.) filed 3/2009, decision 12/10/10 – The Commission filed a brief in support of plaintiffs’ argument that abolishing the rank of Captain violated the ADEA since the rank was only available to officers who had served thirty years with the police department. Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling that the plaintiffs could not challenge the City’s abolishment of the Captain rank based on disparate impact because it only applied to one group of employees.

2009

Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co.: (8th Cir.) filed 4/21/08, decided 9/14/09 – The Commission filed a brief supporting Plaintiff’s position that sufficient evidence had been presented to suggest Defendant’s proffered reasons for Baker’s termination were pretext for age discrimination. Eighth Circuit reversed district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant and remanded the case.

2007

Hare v. Denver Merchandise Mart, Inc.: (10th Cir.) filed 1/25/07, decided 11/02/07 – The Commission filed brief arguing that evidence of company officials giving fundamentally different accounts of the events that led up to the plaintiff’s termination, including conflicting statements as to what was done, by whom and why, was pretext for age discrimination. Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant and remanded case.

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