Thompson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
582 F.3d 1125, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20767, 107 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 161 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The pattern-or-practice framework, which allows plaintiffs to prove systemic discrimination by showing an employer's standard operating procedure was discriminatory, is applicable to claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Facts:
- In 2002, Weyerhaeuser Company's Valliant, Oklahoma containerboard plant implemented a reduction in force.
- Sixteen of the plaintiffs, including Joel White, Linda Slabaugh, Susan Rogers, Ed Risenhoover, Joe Privette, James Little, Alan Lewis, Darrell Kelley, Ford Hendershot, Stan Harris, Harold Griffin, Alan Gebert, Tony Fennell, William Cooper, Gerald Adams, and Robert Timmer, were discharged in 2002 as a result of this reduction in force.
- Larry Thompson, a seventeenth plaintiff, was discharged from Weyerhaeuser in 2003.
- All discharged plaintiffs were over forty years of age at the time of their respective terminations.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a wrongful discharge action against Weyerhaeuser in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging violations of the ADEA and state law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Weyerhaeuser, finding that the plaintiffs had signed valid waivers of their right to file ADEA claims in exchange for severance packages.
- The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment (Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 446 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2006)), holding that the waivers were not valid, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- On remand, the plaintiffs requested that the district court apply the pattern-or-practice framework adopted in Teamsters.
- Weyerhaeuser moved to strike the plaintiffs' request, arguing that the framework should only be employed in employment discrimination cases filed under Title VII.
- The district court denied Weyerhaeuser's motion, reasoning that Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp. established the framework's applicability to ADEA cases.
- The district court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 the pattern-or-practice framework, established by the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States for Title VII claims, apply to cases alleging systemic age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Henry, Chief Judge
Yes, the pattern-or-practice framework may be applied to claims alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Tenth Circuit held that its prior decision in Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp. is controlling precedent, establishing that when an ADEA plaintiff alleges that age discrimination was an employer's "standard operating procedure" and presents sufficient evidence, the district court must apply the pattern-or-practice framework. The court rejected Weyerhaeuser's argument that Thiessen's statements were dicta, clarifying that the determination was "necessarily involved" and "essential" to the Thiessen court's decision to reverse the decertification of a class action because the application of the framework was specifically addressed. Furthermore, the court dismissed Weyerhaeuser's reliance on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., distinguishing it by explaining that Gross concerned the "but-for" causation standard and burden-shifting in "mixed-motive" individual disparate treatment cases, not the systemic pattern-or-practice framework. The court emphasized that the pattern-or-practice framework was established by courts, not by express statutory language differing between Title VII and ADEA. Other circuit courts and scholarly commentary also support the application of the framework to ADEA cases.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the applicability of a powerful litigation tool, the pattern-or-practice framework, to ADEA claims, making it easier for groups of older employees to challenge systemic age discrimination. By affirming that Thiessen is controlling precedent, the Tenth Circuit provides clarity on the proper procedural and evidentiary standards for such cases, preventing employers from avoiding this framework simply by raising new arguments not explicitly addressed in prior opinions. This decision indicates a broad judicial interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes to combat systemic bias, potentially encouraging more class action or collective action lawsuits under the ADEA.
