On September 29, 2010, a class of male employees 50 years of age or older filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. The plaintiffs, represented ...
read more >
On September 29, 2010, a class of male employees 50 years of age or older filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for lost compensation in front pay and back pay, attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, and liquidated damages, claiming that they were abruptly terminated without explanation. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that their employment was terminated because of their age in violation of the ADEA.
On November 29, 2010, the defendant moved to dismiss Count III of the complaint for failure to state a claim because plaintiffs were not employees of defendant at the time of the alleged retaliation.
On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract, alleging that the ADEA waiver in its releases was invalid and unenforceable.
On May 9, 2012, the Court (Judge Nora Barry Fischer) granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification because all members of the proposed class were over age 50 when they were terminated, all of their terminations were in the course of a single, company-wide reduction in force, and the plaintiffs relied on common evidence to prove their alleged discrimination.
On July 20, 2012, the Court denied the defendant's motion for interlocutory appeal because the Court's decision regarding certification was merely conditional and therefore not a final ruling.
In February and August 2013, five plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice.
In 2016, after trial, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs for $922,060.
Christianna Kyriacou - 11/22/2013
Raul Noguera-McElroy - 03/03/2019
compress summary