Skip top navigation Skip to content

Print   Email  Share

Top 10 EEOC ADEA Cases

(compiled 6-1-2017)

  • EEOC v. Ligget & Myers, Inc. (M.D.N.C. FY 1983)
    $7 million in cash and $3 million in additional pension contributions to 107 current and former sales employees discharged or demoted due to their ages in companywide reorganization.
  • EEOC v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (S.D.N.Y. FY 1985)
    $12 million to approximately 360 individuals laid off in reduction in force in which age and retirement eligibility were factors in selection process.
  • EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Ill. FY 1986)
    Intervention in suit challenging airline's policy requiring the mandatory retirement of flight engineers at age 60; resolution provided $10 million to 94 individuals and reinstatement of individuals forced to retire.
  • EEOC v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. (D. Minn. FY 1991)
    $35 million (including private counsel attorney's fees and payments for state law claims) to 32 management-level employees over age 40 discharged because of their ages.
  • EEOC v. Martin Marietta Corporation, (D. Colo. FY 1997)
    Consent decree provided $13 million to approximately 2,000 nonbargaining unit employees age 40 and over discharged during reductions in force. Decree required defendant to rehire 450 individuals, and to provide claimants 2 years of outplacement services and up to 8 classes at the defendant's Evening Institute to interested claimants. The decree also established procedures defendant was required to follow in reductions-in-force occurring during the decree's 5-year term.
  • EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins (S.D.N.Y. FY 1999)
    Consent decree provided $28 million to 13 employee-directors of insurance brokerage and employee benefits consulting firm forced to retire at the earlier of age 62 or age 60 with 15 years of service. Defendant rescinded its mandatory retirement policy.
  • EEOC v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (N.D. Ind. FY 1999)
    $7.1 million to individuals age 40 and over provided lower severance payments upon closing of a television manufacturering plant.
  • EEOC v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (N.D. Cal. FY 2003)
    EEOC intervened in a private suit against a state entity that under the Eleventh Amendment was immune from monetary relief in private ADEA actions. The suit alleged that payments of lower disability retirement benefits to public safety officers age 40 and over constituted age discrimination. Consent decrees provided retroactive benefits of approximately $50 million.
  • EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP (N.D. Ill. FY 2008)
    EEOC alleged that an international law firm violated the ADEA by implementing and maintaining an age-based retirement policy and by downgrading or expelling from its partnership certain partners age 40 and older because of their ages. A consent decree provided $27.5 million to 32 former partners and prohibited defendant from: (1) terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of, or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age; (2) maintaining any formal or informal mandatory partner retirement policy or practice based on age; (3) pressuring a partner to change partnership status or to retire because of age; (4) requiring partners to cease their service on any firm committee (except the Executive or Management Committees), or as a practice group head, because of age; or (5) taking retaliatory action against any person for conduct related to the case or the claims in the case.
  • EEOC v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (D. Mass. FY 2017)
    EEOC alleged in this nationwide action that a Kentucky-based restaurant chain failed to hire individuals 40 years of age and older into visible front-of-the-house (FOH) positions, such as servers, hosts, server assistants, and bartenders because of their ages. A 42-month consent decree provided $12 million to PAG applicants denied positions during the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2014. The decree enjoins defendant from rejecting applicants for FOH positions based on age, from advertisements or materials related to FOH positions that indicate a preference based on age, and from retaliation. Defendant will hire a decree compliance monitor and a diversity director. One year from the effective date of the decree and every 6 months thereafter, the monitor will assess compliance with the decree by reviewing data and documentary information compiled by the diversity director. The monitor will prepare an annual report summarizing the review for all parties. If the monitor determines a restaurant is not in compliance with the decree, the monitor will conduct a review of the restaurant that will include data and application analyses, interviews with hiring authorities, and an evaluation of recruiting procedures. If the review results in a finding that the decree has been violated, the monitor will audit the restaurant and prepare a report and make recommendations to remedy noncompliance.  Defendant also will hire a generational expert to assist with PAG recruiting.