University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Max v. Maytag Corp EE-IL-0154
Docket / Court 04 C 4617 ( N.D. Ill. )
Additional Docket(s) 1:04-cv-04632  [ 04-4632 ]  N.D. Ill.
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On July 14, 2004, a 62-year-old employee filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northeast District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Maytag Corporation, his former employer, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). he plaintiff claimed that he was demoted and ... read more >
On July 14, 2004, a 62-year-old employee filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northeast District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Maytag Corporation, his former employer, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). he plaintiff claimed that he was demoted and denied a promotion because of his age. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought lost profits, liquidated damages, reinstatement to his former position, attorney’s fees, and pre-judgement interest. The case was assigned to Judge William Hart and subsequently transferred to Judge Ronald A. Guzman.

On September 20, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to follow the necessary procedures of first filing a claim of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The court denied this motion on September 22, 2004 because it consolidated this case with EEOC v. Maytag, 1:04-cv-04632, a class-wide age discrimination against a group of Regional Sales Managers already begun by the EEOC. The court found that both cases involved the same issues and requested the plaintiffs to jointly file a new complaint. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the consolidation was denied on October 28, 2004.

As requested by the court, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2004. The amended complaint alleged that the defendant demoted a class of employees over the age of 50 from Regional Sales Managers to Zone Managers. The defendant again filed a motion to dismiss the original individual plaintiff's claims on November 12, 2004, claiming he had failed to file his claims within the statutorily mandated time period. The defendant also claimed that the EEOC never filed charges of discrimination, and so their claims also required dismissal.

On May 12, 2005, the court disagreed. It denied the motion to dismiss because the EEOC had provided sufficient notice to the defendant of alleged age discrimination involving an entire class of employees. The EEOC's action was triggered by the individual plaintiff's complaint, sufficient to inform the defendant of the possibility of a class-wide issue. As to the time bar, the plaintiffs did not assert at what time the individual became aware of the fact that he was being discriminated against. This event, and not when the discriminatory action was alleged to have actually occurred, would trigger the time limit. The motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety. 2005 WL 1563109.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on September 7, 2005 and a consent decree was entered on December 2, 2005 resolving both cases. The defendant agreed to pay class members a total of $334,500, to post notice of the decree on non-public bulletin boards used for employee communication, to provide training in age discrimination law for its managers and supervisors, and to report semi-annually to the EEOC on the age of employees promoted and demoted. The defendant also agreed its employees would not retaliate against any person who opposed practices that were unlawful under the ADEA. The parties incurred their own attorneys' costs and fees and the settlement agreement remained in effect for two years.

This case is now closed.

Kevin Wilemon - 08/19/2008
Hannah Greenhouse - 10/30/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Training
Defendant-type
Retailer
Discrimination-area
Demotion
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Private Suit Related / Consolidated with EEOC Suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Maytag Corporation
Plaintiff Description A 62-year-old regional sales manager, with the EEOC intervening on behalf of similarly situated regional sales managers over the age of 50
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
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 2005 - 2007
Filing Year 2004
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-IL-0305 : EEOC, et al v. Maytag Corp (N.D. Ill.)
Docket(s)
1:04-cv-04617 (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0154-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/02/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Nature of the Action [ECF# 1]
EE-IL-0154-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/15/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0154-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2004
Consolidated Amended Complaint
EE-IL-0154-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/02/2004
Memorandum Opinion and Order (2005 WL 1563109 / 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 136) (N.D. Ill.)
EE-IL-0154-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/12/2005
Consent Decree
EE-IL-0154-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/02/2005
EEOC Litigation Settlement Report (December 2005)
EE-IL-0154-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/31/2005
Complaint
EE-IL-0154-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/15/2007
Plaintiff's Lawyers Cohen, Ethan M.M. (Illinois)
EE-IL-0154-0009
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
EE-IL-0154-0009
Gochanour, Gregory M. (Illinois)
EE-IL-0154-0009
Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)
EE-IL-0154-0009
Lee, Jason (District of Columbia)
EE-IL-0154-0009
Reams, Gwendolyn Young (District of Columbia)
EE-IL-0154-0009

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -