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.

DOLGIN v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON

June 5, 1989

CLAUDIA DOLGIN, Plaintiff,
v.
SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ASPEN

 MARVIN E. ASPEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Plaintiff Claudia Dolgin brings this action charging defendant Shearson Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. ("Shearson") *fn1" with terminating her on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, Dolgin prays for liquidated damages under § 7b of the ADEA on an allegation that "defendant knew that such conduct was unlawful." Complaint, para. 8. Shearson moves to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to strike the prayer for liquidated damages. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

 Discussion

 Section 7b of the ADEA provides that "liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of [the Act]." 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The Supreme Court recently held that proof that the defendant knew of the existence of the ADEA is not enough to support a finding of willful misconduct. "[A] violation of the Act [is] 'willful' if 'the employer. . . knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.'" Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 126, 105 S. Ct. 613, 624, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1985), quoting Air Line Pilots Assoc. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 713 F.2d 940, 956 (2d Cir. 1983). See also Burlew v. Eaton Corp., 869 F.2d 1063 (7th Cir. 1989) (discussing the ambiguous role of "intent to discriminate" in this scheme as applied to disparate treatment cases). The Court later refined the "reckless disregard" portion of this standard, stating that an unreasonable determination by the employer that its action does not violate the ADEA does not constitute willful misconduct unless that determination was additionally reckless. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 108 S. Ct. 1677, 1682 n.13, 100 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1988). See also Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 860 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1988).

 Conclusion

 Dolgin has alleged sufficient facts to support an award of liquidated damages under the ADEA. Accordingly, Shearson's motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to strike the prayer for such damages is denied. Shearson is to file its answer within fifteen days. It is so ordered.

 DATED June 5, ...


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.