On September 9, 1994, a group of former employees of New York Post age 40 or older filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEA"), and the New York State Human Rights Law Section 297(9) (the "HRL") against defendants New York Post Holding, Inc. ("NYPH"), the New York Post Company and Rupert Murdoch in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for back pay, forward pay, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that they were discriminated against by their former employer, the corporate entity and individual defendant Rupert Murdoch which owned and operated the "New York Post" newspaper.

Specifically, plaintiffs, who were all over 40, claimed that on or after October 4, 1993 when defendants NYPH and Murdoch acquired the ownership and/or control of the "New York Post," the defendants intentionally designed and implemented a reorganization program whereby the employment of all persons working for the New York Post was terminated, and a disproportionately large number of those employees who were age 40 and over were not rehired.

On January 12, 1995, the parties agreed to dismiss the action against the New York Post Company, such that the remaining defendants were NYPH and Rupert Murdoch. Subsequently, defendant Rupert Murdoch moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, arguing that he was not an "employer" as defined by the ADEA or HRL.

On August 2, 1995, the district court (Judge Sterling Johnson) held that an owner could not be individually liable under the ADEA and that plaintiffs failed to allege any facts that would give rise to individual liability of the owner under HRL. The plaintiffs were ordered to amend complaint to allege representative liability under ADEA and under HRL. Leykis v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 899 F.Supp. 986 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).

Defendant Rupert murdock was dismissed as a defendant by stipulation on January 31, 1996.

On April 25, 1997, fifty-two class members entered into a settlement agreement with the remaining defendants, the terms of which are unavailable.

Kunyi Zhang - 09/03/2010


compress summary