University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. TIN, Inc. d/b/a Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc EE-AZ-0061
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-1899-NVW ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In August 2006 the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants ... read more >
In August 2006 the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants terminated the complaining party and a class of employees who were forty-years-old or older and made comments concerning the age of the complaining party.

In 2007, the parties entered settlement talks as they continued to engage in discovery. On December 17, 2007, TIN moved for summary judgment. On June 2, 2008, District Judge Neil Wake granted the defendant's motion on the grounds that "the EEOC has not provided direct evidence that the termination of [claimants] were motivated by age-based animus...TIN has articulated legitimate, nondiscrimination reasons for the terminations...[t]he EEOc has not established that TIN's articulated reasons are mere pretext." Therefore, "a reasonable fact-finder could not conclude that age discrimination was the real reason for the terminations of [claimants]." 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43193. The EEOC appealed this decision on July 31, 2008. The 9th Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for trial, finding that a jury could potentially find age discrimination. 349 Fed. Appx. 190.

On June 11, 2010, the parties entered a consent decree. The settlement enjoined the defendant from engaging in an employment practice that constituted age discrimination, including retaliation. Further, the defendant agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve the claims, provide training about the ADEA to employees, expunge references to the complaints from personnel files, provide neutral letters of references to claimants, modify its policies to ensure equal opportunity for employees of all ages, and file reports with the EEOC Phoenix District Office for the Duration of the decree (two years). Since there is no subsequent enforcement activity, presumably the matter closed finally in June 2012.

David Friedman - 05/20/2008
Rachel Barr - 01/04/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Training
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
No EEOC Final Resolution Type
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) TIN, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2010 - 2012
Filing Year 2006
Case Closing Year 2012
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
2:06-cv-01899-NVW (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0061-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/11/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint
EE-AZ-0061-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/02/2006
Order [ECF# 134] (2008 WL 2323913) (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0061-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/02/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Mandate [Ct. of App. ECF# 150] (349 Fed.Appx. 190)
EE-AZ-0061-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/16/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree [ECF# 155] (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0061-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/11/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Wake, Neil Vincent (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0061-0002 | EE-AZ-0061-0003 | EE-AZ-0061-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Marshall, Michelle G. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Meyer, Valerie L. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
O'Neill, Mary Jo (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Shanley, Sally C. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Aldrine, Fritz Joseph (Texas)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Bentley, Cintra D. (Illinois)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
DeGroff, Christopher James (Illinois)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Gabriel, Stacy Meryl (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0061-9000
Olson, Camille (Illinois)
EE-AZ-0061-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -