Skip top navigation Skip to content

Print   Email  Share

Selected List of Pending and Resolved Cases Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

(As of August 2012)

PENDING:

2012

Marymount Manhattan College: (S.D. N.Y) filed 4/18/12 by New York District Office - The Commission alleges that Charging Party, a 64-year-old choreography instructor, was not hired for an assistant professorship in dance composition because of her age in violation of the ADEA. Defendant, a private liberal arts college, initially selected the 64-year-old choreography instructor and two other applicants as finalists. However, after determining that the 64-year-old was the leading candidate, Defendant expanded its search to include a less qualified, 37-year-old applicant as a fourth finalist because it considered her to be "at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position."

Hutchinson Sealing Systems: (E.D. Mich.) filed 1/20/12 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleges that three charging parties, all project engineers, ages 62, 51 and 48, were laid off by Defendant because of their age. The Commission contends that Defendant, a manufacturer of parts for the automotive, aerospace, defense and marine industries, manipulated its criteria for selecting project engineers for layoff based on age. As a result, the older engineers were laid off instead of the younger engineers.

2011

Bank of Albuquerque: (D. N.M.) filed 12/27/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that two charging parties, long-time management employees, were discharged and disciplined because of their gender and age; a third employee was disciplined because of her gender and age. More specifically, the Commission alleges that Defendant terminated and disciplined the charging parties for reasons not applied to younger male managers and employees.

Texas Roadhouse: (D. Mass.) filed 9/30/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleges that a class of applicants for "front of the house" and other visible positions in the restaurant was discriminated against by Defendant when it failed to hire them because of their age. Since at least 2007, the Commission alleges that Defendant has hired significantly few "front of the house" employees 40 or older, has instructed its managers to hire younger job applicants, and hiring officials have told older, unsuccessful applicants across the nation that, "there are younger people here who can grow with the company;" "you seem older to be applying for this job" and "do you think you would fit in?"

Western Energy Services: (D. N.M.) filed 9/29/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that charging parties, ages 61 and 72, were discriminated against because of their age when Defendant failed to hire them for electrician positions. Defendant allegedly determined they were "too old" to perform the job duties despite being the next union members on the hiring list. Despite their vast work experience and qualifications, Defendant hired two lesser qualified electricians in their 20s.

Trinity Protection Services: (E.D. Cal.) filed 9/27/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that at least four older male security guards were discharged because of their age, ranging from 66 to 73-years-old. Initially, the four men and three women were dismissed because of their scores on an arms requalification shoot. However, the three women, ages 28, 29, and 50 were invited to return and re-qualify. Trinity asserted that it brought the younger women back early because it was "hurting for employees." However, the EEOC's investigation found that the company did not extend the same invitation to reapply to the older men.

American Samoa Government: (D. Haw.) filed 8/30/11 by Los Angeles District Office - In its first lawsuit filed against the government of American Samoa, the Commission alleges that a class of older workers were discriminated against because of their age. According to the lawsuit, the American Samoa government initiated a campaign in the U.S. territory to remove older employees from the government workforce in order to open up positions for younger people who were seeking employment.

2009

Hi-Line Electric Corp. Inc.: (N.D. Tex.) filed 9/30/09 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleges that a class of applicants over age 40 was excluded from consideration for hire as Territory Managers because of their age. Defendant, a tools manufacturing and marketing company, developed hiring criteria that excluded applicants older than age 50.

Ruby Tuesday: (W.D. Pa.) filed 9/30/09 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that since at least January 2005, a class of applicants over the age of 40 was denied hire for restaurant positions at six of Defendant's locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

RESOLVED:

2012

Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc: (D. Haw.) resolved 7/19/12 by Los Angeles District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, a then-54-year-old office coordinator, was terminated based on age after Defendant's owner ordered a manager to fire charging party because she "looks old, sounds old on the telephone," and is "like a bag of bones." Case settled for $193,236 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Tempe Elementary School District No. 3: (D. Ariz.) resolved 5/23/12 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that the charging party and a group of retired employees were discriminatorily compensated for accrued leave based on their age. More specifically, Defendant maintained a facially age-discriminatory early retirement incentive plan which compensates retiring employees for accumulated general leave at rates which vary based on age, so that employees who retire at age 61 or older are compensated for accumulated leave at lower rates than the rates paid to younger employees who retire between ages 55 and 60. Case settled $148,162.53 to 49 class members and injunctive relief including training, revision of retirement policy among other things.

Advance Components: (N.D. Tex.) resolved 5/18/12 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, a 64-year-old national sales manager with 20 years of experience with the company, was subjected to ageist comments by Defendant's executive vice president and general manager. Defendant's management repeatedly expressed his preference to hire younger salesmen and referred to charging party as "old fashioned." A day after defendant fired charging party, it hired a man in his 30s. Case settled for $201,000 in monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Star Tex Gasoline and Oil Distributors: (S.D. Tex.) resolved 5/16/12 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, a former fire chief with extensive relevant work experience, was not hired for a truck driver position with Defendant because of his age. Defendant's hiring official focused entirely on charging party's age rather than qualifications and experience during the interview. Case settled for $10,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Central Freight Lines: (N.D. Tex.) resolved 5/10/12 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleged that a class of employees was discriminated against based on age. The EEOC alleges that Defendant used a reduction-in-force as a ruse to fire eight dockworkers, some of whom had worked at the company for 20 or more years and were approximately 50 years old and older. Defendant subjected this class of workers to names like "grandpa," "old farts" and "old bastards." Eventually, the company replaced the class of workers with younger hires. Case settled for $400,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Minnesota Board of Public Defense; Minnesota Department of Commerce; Minnesota Department Human Services; Minnesota Department of Corrections; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Minnesota Department of Public Safety: (D. Minn.; 8th Cir.) resolved six lawsuits between 12/9/10 - 5/1/12 by Chicago District Office - In six separate lawsuits, the Commission alleged that Defendants had an unlawful "Age 55 Cliff" retirement policy, which penalized workers who retired after the age of 55 by denying them the same benefits that those who retired at age 55 received. Under the policy an employee who retired by age 55 received payment of the employer's share of insurance premiums (ranging from 85% to 100% of the total amount of the premium) until age 65. An employee, who retired after age 55, received nothing. 8th Circuit affirmed decision that Defendants plans were discriminatory under the ADEA. Cases settled for just under $2 million in monetary damages for approximately 85 people. The state also paid the employers' share of health and dental insurance to those claimants who were eligible for it but for their age.

Kelley Drye & Warren: (S.D. N.Y.) resolved 4/11/12 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Kelley Drye & Warren, a law firm with over 300 attorneys, had a system in which attorneys who practiced law after turning 70 years of age received dramatically reduced compensation compared to similarly productive younger attorneys solely because of their age. The EEOC further charged that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against an attorney who had practiced law at the firm for over 40 years, by further reducing his compensation after he complained about this discriminatory policy and filed a charge with the EEOC. Case settled for $574,000 for one attorney who continued to practice at the firm after he turned 70 and end of policy requiring partners to give up equity in firm once reached 70 years old.

DXP Enterprises: (D. N.M.) resolved 2/16/12 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party was hired and subsequently fired by Defendant when it learned that she had a prior back injury in violation of the ADA and ADEA. Case settled for $120,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

2011

AT&T: (S.D. N.Y.) resolved 10/26/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that AT&T and a number of its subsidiaries discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers based on age. Defendant denied the retirees the opportunity for reemployment solely because they retired under certain early retirement or enhanced severance programs. Case settled for injunctive relief including elimination of policy that excludes employees who left AT&T under one of the early retirement plans from being rehired, priority hiring of class members, reporting among other things.

Mayor and City Counsel of Ocean City: (D. Md.) resolved 10/20/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party was not hired into the full-time position of airport associate because of his age, 62, and was not rehired into the position of temporary line technician in retaliation for his complaints about age discrimination. Case settled for $38,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Town of Clarence, et al: (W.D. N.Y.) resolved 10/3/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendants refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 62 accrue service credit under their "Length of Service Award Programs" or "LOSAPs," the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, the senior firefighters kept working but did not receive credit for their service once they reached the maximum age. Case settled for $441,740 in retroactive payments to a group of 35 firefighters, including the beneficiaries for eight deceased firefighters. Several firefighters will receive increased monthly pension amounts going forward.

Oyster Bay Fire Department, et.al: (E.D. N.Y) resolved 9/20/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant refused to allow volunteer firefighters over age 62 accrue credit toward a "length of service award" (LOSAP), the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 62. Case settled for $279,600 for 31 firefighters who lost pension money and provide increased monthly pension amounts going forward to several firefighters.

3M Company: (D. Minn.) resolved 8/22/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleged that 3M unlawfully laid off hundreds of employees over the age of 45 during a series of reductions in force (RIFs) nationwide. The older employees were denied leadership training and laid off to make way for younger leaders. Case settled for $3 million in monetary relief to approximately 290 former employees and injunctive relief.

Resource Residential: (S.D. Ga.) resolved 7/26/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a property management corporation, unlawfully subjected three management-level employees, ages 53, 60 and 64, to discrimination by firing them because of their ages and subsequently hiring 14 employees under the age of 40 to support its effort to create a younger image. In addition to $335,000 in monetary relief, the settlement includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and anti-discrimination postings.

Cavalier Telephone: (E.D. Va.) resolved 7/18/11 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleged that defendant, a provider of telephone, Internet, and digital TV services, demoted a sales director and sales manager because of their ages and in retaliation for opposing age discrimination. The complaint also alleged that defendant failed to hire applicants age 40 and over into account executive positions in its mid-Atlantic region, and failed to retain hiring-related documents as required by the Commission's ADEA regulations. Case settled for $1 million in monetary relief to 25 claimants and injunctive relief including training, postings and maintenance of applications and personnel records, among other things.

Asian World of Martial Arts: (E.D. Pa.) resolved 5/24/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, age 74, was fired by Defendant pursuant to a newly implemented retirement policy which mandated that all employees age 67 and over be terminated. Charging party had a good performance record during his 26 years of employment with the company prior to the forced retirement. Case settled for $100,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Dillard's: (E.D. N.C.) resolved 5/16/11 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, an area sales manager, was terminated because of her age and replaced by a less experienced, 24-year-old sales manager in violation of the ADEA. Charging party had successfully worked as an area sales manager for over four years as compared to the younger sales manager who worked for Defendant for approximately four months. At the time of her termination, charging party ranked second out of six area sales managers in terms of sales. Case settled for $50,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Tandy Brands Accessories:(S.D. Tex.) resolved 3/29/11 by Houston District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, a 62-year-old manager, was terminated by Defendant as part of a "reduction-in-force," while a less qualified and substantially younger manager was retained by Defendant in violation of the ADEA. In addition, five other supervisors, ages 58 to 75, were laid off in a different location as part of Defendant's campaign to give the company a youthful image. Case settled for $95,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Brentwood Fire Department: (E.D. N.Y.) resolved 3/16/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that between 1990 and 2004, Defendant prohibited volunteer firefighters over age 62 from accruing credit toward a "length of service award," the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, the senior firefighters kept working but did not receive credit for their service once they reached 62. Case settled for $465,600 in monetary relief, retroactive payments to 28 class members and increase in pension payments for 20 others as well as injunctive relief including elimination of age restriction on service credit, training and institution of anti-discrimination policy among other things.

Amityville Fire Department: (E.D. N.Y.) resolved 2/23/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant refused to allow volunteer firefighters over age 65 accrue credit toward a "length of service award," the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 65. Case settled for $209,280 in monetary relief and retroactive payments for 23 volunteer firefighters as well as injunctive relief including elimination of an age restriction on service credit among other things.

2010

Black Gaming, et al.: (D. N.M.) resolved 12/21/10 by Los Angeles District Office - The Commission alleged that charging parties, two sales managers ages 67 and 55, were subjected to discrimination based on age when their positions were eliminated. Defendant subsequently hired two younger employees to replace the charging parties. Case settled for $60,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Planet Ford: (S.D. Tex.) resolved 10/15/10 by Houston District Office - The Commission alleged that two charging parties were subjected to age discrimination, and retaliation among other basis. The supervisor repeatedly berated the charging parties for being "too old" for the job and "washed up" in the industry. Case settled for $160,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Republic Services of Southern Nevada: (D. Nev.) resolved 9/21/10 by Los Angeles District Office - The Commission alleged that a class of employees, including garbage collectors, drivers, and supervisors, some of whom were employed by the company for more than 25 years, were denied transfers and terminated by Defendant because of their age, (i.e. over 40). Defendant subsequently hired younger employees to fill those positions. The EEOC further alleged that Defendant engaged in a form of hazing called "break him off," in which some employees were worked to the point of exhaustion, often making it difficult for them to do their jobs. Case settled for $2.9 million in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Area Temps, Inc.: (N.D. Ohio) resolved 7/27/10 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a temporary agency, discriminated against job applicants by considering and assigning (or declining) job applicants based on their race, sex, national origin (Hispanic), and age. Defendant unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients, and unlawfully fired two of its employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps' discriminatory practices and participation in the EEOC's investigation. Case settled for $650,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief including posting of settlement notice and letter to all applicants regarding settlement, among other things.

McIntosh County Health Department: (S.D. Ga.) resolved 6/29/10 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, an office manager, was terminated from her position of over 25 years because of her age. Case settled for $60,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Selden Fire District: (E.D. N.Y) resolved 4/23/10 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, fire district, refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 55 accrue credit toward a "length of service award" (LOSAP), the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 55. Case settled for $263,360, made in retroactive payments, to a group of 23 firefighters and increased monthly pension amounts going forward to several firefighters.

Bayville Fire Company: (E.D. N.Y.) resolved 4/12/10 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that the fire company and villages refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 65 accrue credit toward a "length of service award" (LOSAP), the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 65. Case settled for total damages between $180,000 to $240,000 for 15-18 firefighters and agreement to provide increased monthly pension amounts going forward to several firefighters.

Village of Mineola: (E.D. N.Y.) resolved 1/21/10 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, fire district, refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 60 accrue credit toward a "length of service award" (LOSAP), the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 60. Case settled for $237,072 in retroactive payments to a group of 25 firefighters, and increased monthly pension amounts going forward to several firefighters.

Ralph Schomp: (D. Colo.) resolved 1/6/10 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that five older male employees were terminated because of their ages and replaced with younger, less experienced workers in violation of the ADEA. Specifically, a 20 year old manager allegedly made age-related comments prior to the terminations and younger employees with lower sales numbers were retained. Also, five women were subjected to sex discrimination and a sexually hostile work environment. Case settled for $1.505 million in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

2009

Allstate Ins. Co.: (E.D. Mo.) resolved 11/14/09 by St. Louis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a nationwide insurance company, imposed a hiring moratorium that had a disparate impact on former sales agents age 40 and over. Defendant also implemented a policy prohibiting the rehire of any former employee/agent during the longer of 1 year after termination or the period during which the individual received severance benefits (a maximum of 2 years). Almost 95% of the former sales agents affected by the hiring moratorium were age 40 or older. Case settled for $4.5 million (75% back pay and 25% interest) to 92 individuals and injunctive relief.

Nassau County Police Dep't and Nassau County: (E.D.N.Y.) resolved 4/29/09 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant transferred four police officers out of defendant's marine bureau to patrol jobs in July 2006 because of their ages (60, 58, 55, and 53), constructively discharging two of them. Case settled for $450,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Qualex: (D. Conn.) resolved 3/24/09 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party and other workers aged 40 or older were subjected to age discrimination through an inequitable "Reduction in force" (RIF). Case settled for $272,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Alpine School District: (D. Utah) resolved 1/26/09 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that charging parties, two teachers, ages 50 and 59, were denied a position by Defendant because of their ages. Case settled for $85,000 and a teaching position with full seniority rights and benefits for 50 year-old teacher; the 59-year-old teacher received $50,000 and injunctive relief including written apologies from defendant's superintendent, positive employment references, demotion of principal and removal of authority to discharge or hire employees, among other things.

2008

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: (D. P.R.) resolved 9/22/08 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant violated the ADEA by not allowing workers over 55 to become members of Retirement System, because of their age. Case settled for $1.3 million in monetary relief and injunctive relief including provision of retirement credit to all affected employees, and a Special Master to oversee that process, among other things.

Renhill Staffing Services:(N.D. Ind.) resolved 4/16/08 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, staffing agency, failed to refer African American applicants and applicants age 40 or older for work assignments. Further, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against employees who objected to these referral practices. Case settled for $580,000 in monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Lockheed Martin Global Communications: (D. Md.) resolved 4/4/08 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant fired 8 employees, employed as Senior Salespersons, Senior Engineers, and Product Development Specialists, because of their age. Case settled for $773,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

Ram Industries, LLC: (E.D. Pa.) resolved 1/10/08 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that a class of older employees, ages 51-65, was targeted for termination because of their age by Defendant, a manufacturer of electronic control panels. Case settled for $390,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

2007

Nucletron Corp.: (D. Md.) resolved 11/5/07 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that charging party, a 61-year-old employee, was terminated by Defendant, a manufacturer of medical equipment, because of his age. Defendant refused to consider the charging party for other positions in the company. The EEOC also alleged that Defendant violated the retaliation provisions of the ADEA, EPA, and Title VII by using a severance agreement that conditioned benefits on a promise not to file an employment discrimination charge. Case settled for $295,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief including prohibiting defendant from offering or enforcing any severance agreement or other contract requiring individuals to give up right to file discrimination complaints.

Sidley Austin, LLP: (N.D. Ill.) resolved 10/04/07 by Chicago District Office - The Commission alleged that a class of former law partners was forced out of the law firm's partnership because of their age as a result of Defendant's reorganization and age-based retirement policy. Case settled for $27.5 million in monetary damages for 32 former partners and injunctive relief including elimination of policy, whether formal or informal, requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once partner has reached a certain age.

BNSF Railroad: (W.D. Okla.) resolved 3/30/07 by St. Louis District Office - The Commission alleged that BNSF discriminated against employees eligible for Railroad Retirement by denying them benefits under exit incentive plans offered to clerical employees in its facilities. The lawsuit also alleged that BNSF and the Transportation Communications International Union (TCU), a union representing the railway's clerical employees, discriminated against older employees in their labor contract by eliminating their "protected" status, which afforded them certain benefits, when they became eligible to retire and reached age 70. Case settled for $800,000 for 137 class members to be paid by BNSF and injunctive relief including the elimination of provision at issue in CBA.

2006

Medegen Medical Products, Inc.: (D. Colo.) resolved 10/11/06 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that eight charging parties were terminated by Defendant because of their ages: 56, 60, 60, 62, 53, 63, 49, and 53. Also, one employee was constructively discharged because of her age. Defendant instituted a Reduction in Force (RIF) where it terminated the charging parties but retained younger, less experienced employees. Defendant also advertised job openings after RIF and replaced the terminated employees with younger employees. Case settled for $645,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief, including providing employees copies of employee handbook and discrimination policies, in both English and Spanish among other things.

Independent School District No. 834 of Stillwater, MN: (D. Minn.) resolved 8/18/06 by Chicago District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant offered an early retirement incentive program, through its collective bargaining agreement, which provided a lump sum severance benefit which was reduced based on the employee's age at retirement. Case settled for $1.1 million in monetary relief and injunctive relief as well as relief to retired school district employees in the amount of the age based reduction plus interest.

Lennar Corporation: (D. Ariz.) resolved 7/18/06 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleged that charging parties, sales consultants, were discharged because of their ages: 55, 60, and 56, by Defendant, one of the nation's largest homebuilders and a provider of residential financial services. After terminating the charging parties, Defendant hired new, younger sales consultants. Case settled for $425,000 in monetary relief and injunctive relief.

EEOC APPELLATE CASES

PENDING:

2012

Memphis Health Center, Inc.: Case Nos. 11-6426 & 11-6427 (6th Cir.) filed 1/17/12 - The Commission appealed a decision by the Western District of Tennessee awarding attorney's fees to Memphis Health Center after granting its motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination and retaliation case. The 6th Circuit has not ruled on the Commission's appeal.

2011

Bell Microproducts, Inc.: Case No. 10-15796 (11th Cir.) appeal filed 2/23/11 - The Commission appealed district court's decision granting Defendant summary judgment. The Commission argued that Bell's stated reasons for transferring the Charging Party was pretext for age discrimination because the first position that Bell eliminated during a reduction in forced was the position held by the Charging Party. Further, according to the Commission, Bell gave the Charging Party's sales accounts to considerably younger employees. Finally, the Commission alleges that the Charging Party's supervisor subjected him to ageist comments. The Eleventh Circuit has not ruled on the Commission's appeal.

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 the McDonnell 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.

EEOC AMICUS BRIEFS

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.

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 Staub do 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.