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