Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PAULS v. ELAINE REVELL

September 20, 1983

STELLA PAULS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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.

Complaint Allegations

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
    $5,330.80.
      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 $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.