An EPA suit alleging disparate pay based on gender must be supported by more than conclusory allegations. “This analysis does not depend on job titles or classifications but on the actual requirements and performance of the job.” Factors to be analyzed when determining if men and women are performing equal work include: physical or mental exertion necessary to perform, amount of responsibility and degree of accountability.

Two assistant coaches with identical job descriptions worked for the University of Minnesota’s women’s hockey team. The male coach was paid more than the female coach. The woman’s EPA case was dismissed because the two positions “required different types and degrees of skill and responsibility, they were not ‘substantially equal’ as required by the EPA and Title VII.”

If a plaintiff demonstrates that age was a motivating factor in an employment decision, defendant must prove that it would have made the same decision regardless of age. The Fifth Circuit finds that no direct evidence need be shown in a mixed motive case.

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.”

A 53 year old employee was let go in a reduction-in-force. His duties were taken over by a younger worker. The fact that a younger person took over his duties is not enough to prove age discrimination.

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 72-year old applicant alleged that he was not hired because his age. After he filed an EEOC charge, he was offered the job. He turned it down. The Eleventh Circuit found that by turning down the job, plaintiff lost any claim for damages and equitable relief.

A supervisor said he wanted to fire his property manager and replace the 60-something with “someone younger and more endowed.” The age discrimination suit was dismissed because the employer would have fired the property manager regardless of her age because she was planning to steal a dishwasher.

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.”