High court hears ADEA waiver case; should severance payments block lawsuits for age bias?
Article Abstract:
The tender-back rule holds that it is unfair to question a contract's validity while keeping its benefits, precluding an employee from a suit questioning a dismissal if the employee keeps the severance payment. Oubre v. Entergy Corp. is a pending US Supreme Court case questioning whether an employee can sue because a waiver signed allegedly does not comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when the severance payment was not returned. Lawyers for Oubre contend that the rule could defeat ADEA purposes because employers can escape liability when the employee cannot repay the severance package.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Biggins leaves ADEA issues unresolved
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court has made it more difficult for Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) plaintiffs to prevail with its Apr 1993 decision in Biggins v. Hazen Paper Co. The court held that terminating an employee in order not to have to pay pension benefits does not automatically mean age discrimination has occurred. Evidence of age discrimination will have to be direct rather than indirect empirical correlations such as pensions and seniority. A proven ADEA violation will now be deemed willful, however, which means that the employer will be liable for double damages.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Partner may be judged 'employee;' federal employment laws may impose new liability
Article Abstract:
Recent decisions in the 6th and 8th US Circuit Courts of Appeals show courts will look to a person's role at work rather than their title to determine actual status. The 6th Circuit ruled that a Big Six accounting firm 'partner' did not meet the meaning of that term under the Uniform Partnership Act, so the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other federal laws did apply. The case underscores the uncertain status of non-equity partners, and may create more stablity at small firms but less at large ones with many partners.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Force of law; federal lawsuits for Rodney King raise new issues. School violence; DeShaney bars liability
- Abstracts: A deal skewed by greed? Ex-client says her lawyers' implant deal fashioned their payments before hers. Paul Hastings suit near trial; defunct spinoff at issue
- Abstracts: Tight budget squeezes courts; Judicial Conference says money could run out for civil juries, indigent defense
- Abstracts: The banking scandal: an era of new standards for professionals? MD&A through the eyes of management: a closer look at the SEC's Caterpillar decision
- Abstracts: The banking scandal: an era of new standards for professionals? part 2 A plaintiff wail: the new role of the institutional investors under the Securities Litigation Reform Act