The employer articulated multiple business reasons to discharge a 61 year old accountant and not place him in a lower position. The Court stated “that it is legitimate for an employer to deem someone over-qualified as well as under-qualified, for a position.”

Plaintiff’s self-serving, conclusory affidavit doesn’t make an ADEA case. Dismissing a 60 year-old employee because, based on seniority and benefit level, he costs more to employ does not violate the ADEA.

A jury found that age was a substantial or motivating factor in a layoff decision. The Eleventh Circuit found that despite an illegal motive, the same layoff decision would have been made in the absence of discrimination. The “same decision defense” was upheld.

A female mechanic complained about a safety violation. She was subsequently called a “useless old lady,” reprimanded and fired. Her case was dismissed because she could not prove that her protected traits actually motivated the Company’s decision. The person uttering the discriminatory remark may not have “rubber stamped” her discharge.

A district manager sued his employer’s parent company after a layoff under the ADEA. A parent corporation is liable for a subsidiary’s discrimination if the parent exercised control over the “individual employment decision.”

Twelve warehousemen alleged age discrimination because they were replaced by younger workers. The case was dismissed because “the relevant similarly situated workers are not the workers’ replacements but the five warehousemen . . . who were under 40. . . the young workers were treated exactly like the older workers – all were let go.”

A 51 year old manager sued alleging that his 33 year old supervisor unfairly disciplined him because of his age. The Court found that the manager must show “evidence that age played a motivating part in the defendant’s employment action.” Examples of remarks that showed a discriminatory attitude included referring to a co-worker as old, asking when a co-worker will retire, and noting that “these stories happened before I was born.”

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act requires that a release of ADEA claims be clear and written in a manner calculated to be understood by the employee. The IBM release was deemed confusing and therefore did not prevent an age discrimination claim.

A female VP sent 11 erectile dysfunction pamphlets to a male VP. His claim of sexual harassment failed because this harassment was not “severe, pervasive and regular.” However, the pamphlets could support his age discrimination claim.

General Dynamics Land Systems entered into a collective bargaining agreement that provided retiree benefits to retiring employees over age 50. The 40-50 year old set sued.

Disagreeing with the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits, the Sixth Circuit agreed that this was unlawful age discrimination under the ADEA.