University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. U.S. Aluminum EE-NJ-0097
Docket / Court 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB ( D.N.J. )
Additional Docket(s) 08-03253  [ 08-3253 ]  Federal Court of Appeals
State/Territory New Jersey
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit against U.S. Aluminum, Inc., United States Bronze Powders, Inc., and UAW Local 1668 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 11, 2006. The complaint alleged age discrimination in ... read more >
The New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit against U.S. Aluminum, Inc., United States Bronze Powders, Inc., and UAW Local 1668 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 11, 2006. The complaint alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because the collective bargaining agreement between the employers and the union reduced severance pay for employees over 60 years old who were entitled to pensions. Employees over 65 years who were entitled to pensions received no severance pay at all. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and damages for the charging parties, two employees over the age of 60 who received reduced severance pay after the plant where they worked shut down. The case was assigned to Judge Mary L. Cooper.

The first complaint that the EEOC filed listed only the union and U.S. Aluminum, Inc. as defendant. On May 29, 2007, the EEOC filed its last amended complaint, which named all three defendants.

In late October 2007, all three defendants moved for summary judgment. They did not dispute any of the EEOC’s factual allegations, but they did dispute that their conduct had violated the ADEA. On December 3, the EEOC made a cross motion for summary judgment.

On May 27, 2008, the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that reducing severance pay for employees who are entitled to a pension did not violate the ADEA because the statute explicitly allowed for the coordination of severance pay and pension benefits in certain situations. 2008 WL 2224820. Reasoning that severance pay and pension benefits serve largely the same purpose (to provide a bridge to the newly unemployed person's next pursuit, either a new job or retirement), the court held that the agreement between the employers and the union was fair. No relief was awarded to any party.

The EEOC appealed this case to the Third Circuit but voluntarily dismissed it on September 10, 2008. (Docket Number: 08-03253). The docket ends after this date; the case is presumably closed.

Kevin Wilemon - 05/29/2008
Rebecca Strauss - 05/22/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Pay / Benefits
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) U.S. Aluminum, Inc.
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668
United States Bronze Powders, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf two 63-year-old former employees who received reduced severance pay because they qualified for a pension
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2006
Case Closing Year 2008
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB (D.N.J.)
EE-NJ-0097-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/10/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
EE-NJ-0097-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/11/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint
EE-NJ-0097-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/17/2006
Second Amended Complaint [ECF# 16]
EE-NJ-0097-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/29/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 47] (2008 WL 2224820) (D.N.J.)
EE-NJ-0097-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/27/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bongiovanni, Tonianne J. (D.N.J.) [Magistrate]
EE-NJ-0097-9000
Cooper, Mary Little (D.N.J.)
EE-NJ-0097-0004 | EE-NJ-0097-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Batog, Konrad (New York)
EE-NJ-0097-9000
Grossman, Elizabeth (New York)
EE-NJ-0097-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Angelillo, Robert Charles (New York)
EE-NJ-0097-9000
Castello, Geoffrey W. III (New Jersey)
EE-NJ-0097-9000
Mazzuchetti, Lauri A. (New Jersey)
EE-NJ-0097-9000
McGovern, Robert T. (New York)
EE-NJ-0097-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -