Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
PAULS v. ELAINE REVELL
September 20, 1983
STELLA PAULS, PLAINTIFF,
ELAINE REVELL, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Stella Pauls ("Pauls") sues Elaine Revell, Inc. ("Revell") and
its Chairman Herman Hoke and President James Hoke (collectively
"Hokes"), claiming she was dismissed by Revell because of her age
and sex in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621-34, and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17.*fn1
Hokes now move for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule")
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion
and order their motion is denied.
Pauls is a 50-year-old woman who held various managerial
positions at Revell from March 17, 1976 until August 27, 1982,
when she was discharged. Following her termination Pauls filed a
charge of unlawful sex and age discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As its factual
allegations reveal, that EEOC charge plainly identified Hokes as
the ones responsible for her allegedly discriminatory dismissal
but named only Revell as the "Respondent":*fn2
I. On 8/31/82, Respondent terminated me from my
position as Vice President. I began working for
Respondent March 17, 1976. I was denied Profit
Sharing Benefits of $5,330.80.
II. The reason given by Mr. Herbert Hoke, Chairman,
age 60, and James Hoke, President, age 38, for
termination, was that Respondent was on the verge of
bankruptcy and as of right now, they were letting me
go. The reason given for denial of benefits was a
change in Company Profit Sharing Policy.
III. I believe I have been discriminated against
because of my age, 49, in that:
A) In September of 1982, Respondent filled the
position I held as Vice-President, with Mike (last
name unknown), age 32.
B) Respondent has recently terminated employees
in the protective age (40-70) from Management
positions. Their names are: Delores, age 58;
Audrey, over 40, and Kate, over 50. In addition,
Florence, Bookkeeper, over 40.
C) I was denied the Profit Sharing Benefits of
D) Respondent's Profit Sharing Policy states that
employees shall receive 100% of the benefits, when
I began in March of 1976.
E) Respondent implemented a new Profit Sharing
Benefits policy July 1, 1976. At the time of my
termination, 8/31/82, Respondent only granted me
60% of my Profit Sharing Benefits.
On May 18, 1983 EEOC issued Pauls a Notice of Right To Sue,
entitling her to seek redress in federal court within 90 ...
Buy This Entire Record For