Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
15 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 139, 554 F.2d 730, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12725 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nationwide or company-wide injunction for a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is only appropriate when there is evidence of a company policy or widespread practice of discrimination, not for an isolated discriminatory act by a single employee.
Facts:
- Alonzo Turner, manager of a Goodyear service store in Auburndale, Florida, hired William G. Reed, Jr., age 57, for a sales position on June 12, 1973.
- Glenn Coleman became the new manager of the Auburndale store on August 1, 1973.
- Coleman discharged Reed on August 11, 1973.
- Shortly after discharging Reed, Coleman placed a newspaper advertisement seeking sales applicants between the ages of 19 and 26.
- Coleman also placed a job order with an employment agency that, according to testimony, originally contained a preference for a younger applicant.
- Reed's position was ultimately filled by Terry Gray, age 19.
- Evidence was also presented that another Goodyear store in Lakeland may have placed a job order with an age preference, but the evidence was slight and inconclusive.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in federal district court, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for the discharge of William G. Reed, Jr.
- The district court found that Goodyear had violated the ADEA.
- The district court awarded Reed lost wages and issued a permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting Goodyear from future ADEA violations.
- Goodyear, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an isolated, discriminatory discharge by a single store manager, without evidence of a broader company policy of discrimination, justify a nationwide injunction against the employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gewin, Circuit Judge
No. A nationwide injunction against Goodyear is not justified because the discriminatory discharge was an isolated incident and not the result of a company-wide policy. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), like Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires that the scope of injunctive relief be tailored to the scope of the violation. Precedent establishes that broad, company-wide injunctions are appropriate only when facts indicate a centralized company policy or a widespread practice of discrimination. In this case, the district court found only a single violation—Reed's discharge—which it attributed to the individual prejudice of the local store manager, Coleman, not to a policy from Goodyear itself. The additional evidence of discriminatory job orders was deemed too slight and was not relied upon by the lower court to establish a pattern. Therefore, while some injunctive relief limited to the specific store may be appropriate, a nationwide injunction is an overreach.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard required for obtaining broad injunctive relief in employment discrimination cases under the ADEA. It establishes that courts must carefully tailor the scope of an injunction to the proven scope of the discriminatory conduct. The ruling reinforces the principle that a single, isolated act of discrimination by a low-level manager is insufficient to impute a policy of discrimination to an entire national corporation. This creates a higher burden for plaintiffs seeking nationwide remedies, requiring them to produce evidence of centralized discriminatory policies or a pattern of violations across multiple locations.
