Cummings v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of GA

7/29/2019 Cummings v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of GA

1/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF GEORGI A

ATLANTA DI VI SI ON

LESLI E CUMMI NGS- HARRI Sand PAMELA TATE,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.CI VI L ACTI ON NO.1: 12- cv- 0984- J EC

KAI SER FOUNDATI ON HEALTHPLAN OF GEORGI A, I NC. ,

Def endant .

ORDER & OPINION

Thi s case i s bef or e t he Cour t on def endant s Mot i on f or Summar y

J udgment [ 22] . The Cour t has r evi ewed t he r ecor d and t he ar gument s

of t he par t i es and, f or t he r easons st at ed bel ow, concl udes t hat

def endant s Mot i on [ 22] shoul d be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Thi s i s an empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on case. Pl ai nt i f f s Lesl i e

Cummi ngs- Har r i s and Pamel a Tat e began worki ng f or def endant Kai ser

Foundat i on Heal t h Pl an of Geor gi a, I nc. ( Kai ser ) i n Febr uar y 2004

and August 2005, r espect i vel y. ( Harr i s Dep. [ 22] at 9 and Tat e Dep.

[ 22] at 18. ) By 2010, Har r i s hel d t he posi t i on of Payr ol l

Super vi sor , whi ch r equi r ed her t o pr ocess payrol l , answer gener al

quest i ons f r om st af f and manager s concer ni ng payr ol l i ssues, and


2/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

1 As pl ai nt i f f s have not r esponded t o def endant s st at ement off act s, t hey are deemed admi t t ed. See LR 56. 1( B) ( 2) ( a) ( 2) , N. D. Ga.

2

f aci l i t at e payr ol l runs. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 21. ) Tat e s

posi t i on i n 2010 was Empl oyee Ser vi ces Transact i on Coor di nator , whi ch

i nvol ved pr ocessi ng st at e and f eder al t ax f or ms f or Kai ser empl oyees.

( Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 25- 26. ) Bot h Har r i s and Tat e wor ked i n t he

Geor gi a Regi on s Empl oyee Ser vi ces uni t , a depar t ment si mi l ar t o

what many compani es r ef er t o as benef i t s admi ni st r at i on. ( Def . s

St mt . of Undi sput ed Mat er i al Fact s ( DSMF) [ 22] at 7, 11. ) 1

St art i ng i n appr oxi matel y 2006, def endant began t o consi der

usi ng a web- based management t ool cal l ed MyHR t o per f orm cer t ai n

human r esour ce f unct i ons. ( Id. at 9. ) Har r i s and Tat e

part i ci pated i n meet i ngs dur i ng t he 2008- 2010 t i mef r ame r egardi ng

MyHR s potent i al i mpact on def endant s human r esour ces depar t ment .

( Id. at 13. ) Har r i s expr essed concer n t o her super vi sor Mel i ssa

Cof i no t hat t he MyHR i mpl ement at i on mi ght endanger j obs wi t hi n

Empl oyee Ser vi ces. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 86- 87. ) Cof i no r eassur ed

[ t he] gr oup t hat ever yt hi ng was f i ne and t hat she woul d al ways keep

[ t hem] i n t he l oop concer ni ng any changes. ( Id. at 87- 88. )

At some poi nt i n 2010, def endant s management i dent i f i ed

Empl oyee Ser vi ces as a uni t t hat pr i mar i l y per f or med l ow- t ouch

empl oyee t r ansact i ons t hat coul d be down- si zed or t r ansf er r ed t o t he

Nat i onal Servi ce Cent er t hrough t he i mpl ement at i on of MyHR. ( DSMF


3/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

3

[ 22] at 18. ) I n l at e 2010, def endant s Geor gi a Regi on was f aced

wi t h a budget shor t f al l as a resul t of i ncr eased out si de medi cal

cost s and t he l oss of a l arge cust omer . ( Id. at 16. ) On account

of t he budget shor t f al l , def endant s management accel er at ed i t s

deci si on t o r educe cost s by t r ansf er r i ng l ow- t ouch t r ansact i onal wor k

t o t he Nat i onal Ser vi ce Cent er . ( Id. at 19. ) Har r i s, Tat e, and

one ot her per son ( Adel i a Hal l ) i n t he Empl oyee Ser vi ces di vi si on wer e

i dent i f i ed as empl oyees whose posi t i ons i nvol ved l ow- t ouch

t r ansact i ons. ( Boat r i ght Decl . [ 22] at 9. )

Cof i no and Geor gi a Human Resour ces di r ect or Li nda Boat r i ght

not i f i ed Har r i s and Tat e on J anuar y 19, 2011 t hat t hei r posi t i ons

woul d be el i mi nated. ( Id. at 1 and DSMF [22] at 27. ) Har r i s and

Tat e wer e bot h t ol d t hat t he deci si on was not r el at ed t o t hei r

per f ormance, and t hat t hey had been excel l ent empl oyees. ( Har r i s

Dep. [ 22] at 35- 36 and Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 34. ) I n conj unct i on wi t h

t he not i f i cat i on, Har r i s and Tat e wer e gi ven a l et t er , a Sever ance

Agreement and General Rel ease ( Agr eement and Rel ease) , a set of

Frequent l y Asked Quest i ons, and i nf or mat i on about out sour ci ng

ser vi ces. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 36 and Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 33. )

The l et t er t hat Har r i s and Tat e r ecei ved provi ded si xt y days

not i ce t hat t hei r posi t i ons wer e bei ng el i mi nat ed due t o

or gani zat i onal r est r uct ur i ng, and i nf or med t he empl oyees t hat t hey

wer e el i gi bl e f or t wo weeks of sever ance pay f or each year t hey had


4/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

4

worked at Kai ser . ( Harr i s Dep. [ 22] at Ex. 1. ) The Agr eement and

Rel ease of f er ed addi t i onal sever ance pay i f t he empl oyees consent ed

t o i t s t er ms, whi ch i ncl uded a r el ease of any empl oyment r el at ed

cl ai ms agai nst def endant . ( Id.) Accor di ng t o Har r i s, Cof i no di d not

expl ai n t he cont ent s of t he Agreement and Rel ease except t o not e t hat

si gni ng t he Agr eement woul d ent i t l e Harr i s t o an ext r a t wo mont hs of

pay. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 39- 40. )

Har r i s and Tate were gi ven 40 days t o si gn t he Agreement and

Rel ease, and seven days t o r evoke t hei r agreement . ( Id. at Ex. 1. )

I n t he weeks af t er t hey met wi t h Cof i no, t he t wo empl oyees r evi ewed

t he Agr eement and Rel ease, si gned i t , and r et ur ned i t t o def endant .

( Id. at 40 and Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 35. ) Bot h empl oyees r ecei ved t he

benef i t s pr omi sed i n t he Agr eement and Rel ease. ( Harr i s Dep. [ 22] at

42 and Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 35- 36. )

Accor di ng t o def endant , t he r est r uct ur i ng af f ect ed

approxi mat el y 30 empl oyees i n t he Geor gi a Regi on, seven of whomwere

under 40. ( Boat r i ght Decl . [ 22] at 10. ) Thr ee posi t i ons i n

Geor gi a s Empl oyee Ser vi ces uni t wer e el i mi nat ed, i ncl udi ng t hose of

Hal l , Har r i s and Tat e. ( Id. at 9. ) At t he t i me of t hei r

t er mi nat i ons, Hal l was 61, Har r i s was 41 and Tat e was 44. ( Pl . s

Resp. [ 23] at Ex. 1. ) Hal l was event ual l y r ehi r ed when def endant

det er mi ned t hat t he rest r uct ur i ng di d not adequat el y account f or her

j ob f unct i ons. ( DSMF [ 22] at 49- 50. )


5/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

2 Har r i s di d not speci f y i n her deposi t i on why she t hought sucha r equi r ement exi st s. She may have been r ef er r i ng t o t he WARN Act ,whi ch r equi r es t hat empl oyer s gi ve 60 days not i ce pr i or t o a massl ayof f or pl ant cl osi ng. 29 U. S. C. 2102( a) .

5

Af t er l eavi ng Kai ser , Har r i s began st udyi ng f or a human

r esour ces cer t i f i cat i on i n an ef f or t t o obt ai n anot her j ob wi t hi n t he

f i el d. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 38. ) Whi l e st udyi ng f or t he

cer t i f i cat i on, she di scover ed t hat an empl oyee t er mi nat ed due t o

or gani zat i onal r est r uct ur i ng i s ent i t l ed t o 60 days not i ce. 2 ( Id.)

Accordi ng t o Harr i s, t hi s r ai sed concer ns about how she had been

t er mi nated because Cof i no l ed her t o bel i eve that def endant was

gi vi ng her an ext r a 60 days not i ce out of benef i cence, as opposed

t o l egal obl i gat i on. ( Id. at 45. )

Harr i s subsequent l y expr essed her concer ns t o Tat e, and

event ual l y bot h f ormer empl oyees met wi t h an at t orney t o di scuss t he

ci r cumst ances of t hei r t er mi nat i ons. ( Id. at 53 and Tat e Dep. [ 22]

at 39- 40. ) Tat e has si nce t est i f i ed t hat she bel i eves she was f i r ed

so t hat def endant coul d save money because her benef i t s were mor e

expensi ve t han t hose of a younger empl oyee. ( Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 36-

38. ) Har r i s has test i f i ed si mi l ar l y t hat she t hought she was l et go

because she had a hi gher sal ary t han t hat of a younger empl oyee.

( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at 80. )

Har r i s and Tat e have now f i l ed t hi s l awsui t , al l egi ng t hat

def endant i nt ent i onal l y di scri mi nat ed agai nst t hem i n vi ol at i on of


6/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

6

t he Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act ( ADEA) , as amended by t he

Ol der Wor ker s Benef i t Pr ot ect i on Act ( OWBPA) . ( Compl . [ 1] at 9. )

Pl ai nt i f f s al so asser t a di spar at e i mpact cl ai m under t he ADEA, as

wel l as sever al st at e l aw cl ai ms under Geor gi a st at ut ory and common

l aw. ( Id. at 9- 21. ) Def endant cont ends t hat summary j udgment i s

war r ant ed under t he t erms of t he Agr eement and Rel ease. ( Def . s Br .

i n Supp. of Summ. J . ( Def . s Br . ) [ 22] at 14- 15. ) I t argues

f ur t her t hat summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e because pl ai nt i f f s

cannot est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on and have

f ai l ed t o pr esent any evi dence t hat def endant s pr of f er ed,

nondi scr i mi nat or y reasons f or t er mi nat i ng Har r i s and Tat e wer e

pr et ext ual . ( Id. at 16- 20. )

DISCUSSION

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary j udgment i s appropr i at e when t her e i s no genui ne

di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. FED. R. CI V. P. 56( a) . A f act s

mat er i al i t y i s det er mi ned by t he cont r ol l i ng subst ant i ve l aw.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 248 ( 1986) . An i ssue

i s genui ne when t he evi dence i s such t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d

r et ur n a ver di ct on t he i ssue f or t he nonmovant . Id. at 249- 50.

Summary j udgment i s not proper l y vi ewed as a devi ce t hat t he

t r i al cour t may, i n i t s di scr et i on, i mpl ement i n l i eu of a t r i al on


7/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

7

t he mer i t s. However , Federal Rul e 56 mandat es t he ent r y of summar y

j udgment agai nst a par t y who f ai l s t o make a showi ng suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh t he exi st ence of ever y el ement essent i al t o t hat par t y s

case on whi ch he wi l l bear t he bur den of pr oof at t r i al . Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . I n such a si t uat i on,

t her e can be no genui ne i ssue as t o any mater i al f act , as a compl ete

f ai l ur e of pr oof concer ni ng an essent i al el ement of t he non- movi ng

par t y s case necessar i l y r ender s al l ot her f act s i mmat er i al . Id. at

322- 23.

The movant bear s t he i ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y of asser t i ng t he

basi s f or hi s mot i on. Id. at 323. The movant i s not r equi r ed t o

negat e hi s opponent s cl ai m i n or der t o meet t hi s r esponsi bi l i t y.

Rat her , t he movant may di scharge hi s bur den by merel y showi ng - -

t hat i s, poi nt i ng out t o t he di st r i ct cour t - - t hat t her e i s an absence

of evi dence to support t he non- movi ng par t y s case. Id. at 325.

Af t er t he movant has car r i ed hi s bur den, t he non- movi ng part y i s t hen

r equi r ed t o go beyond the pl eadi ngs and pr esent competent evi dence

desi gnat i ng speci f i c f act s showi ng t hat t her e i s a genui ne i ssue

f or t r i al . Id. at 324.

I n deci di ng a mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he cour t must vi ew

al l evi dence and dr aw any f act ual i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most

f avorabl e t o t he non- movi ng part y. Samples v. City of Atlanta, 846

F. 2d 1328, 1330 ( 11t h Ci r . 1988) . But t he mer e exi st ence of some


8/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

3 Because t he r est r uct ur i ng at i ssue her e r esul t ed i n at l east27 empl oyees l osi ng t hei r j obs, 626( f ) ( 1) ( H) i s i mpl i cat ed. See

C. F. R. 1625. 22( f ) ( 1) ( i i i ) ( B) ( A pr ogr am exi st s when an empl oyerof f er s addi t i onal consi der at i on f or t he si gni ng of a wai ver pur suantt o an exi t i ncent i ve or ot her empl oyment t er mi nat i on ( e.g., ar educt i on i n f orce) t o t wo or more empl oyees. ) and Burlison v.McDonalds Corp., 455 F. 3d 1242, 1246 ( 11t h Ci r . 2006) ( def er r i ng t ot he EEOC s r egul at i ons wi t h r espect t o t he appl i cabi l i t y of t heOWBPA s wai ver r equi r ement s) .

8

al l eged f act ual di sput e bet ween t he par t i es wi l l not def eat an

ot herwi se proper l y suppor t ed mot i on f or summary j udgment . Anderson,

477 U. S. at 247- 48 ( 1986) . The r equi r ement t o avoi d summar y j udgment

i s t hat t her e be no genuine i ssue of material f act . I d.

II. THE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

A. Legal Effect of the Release

The OWBPA set s f or t h mi ni mum r equi r ements f or t he knowi ng and

vol unt ar y wai ver of an ADEA cl ai m. 29 U. S. C. 626( f ) ( 1) ( A) - ( H) .

See also Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U. S. 422, 426- 27

( 1998) ( An empl oyee may not wai ve an ADEA cl ai m unl ess t he wai ver

or r el ease sat i sf i es t he OWBPA s r equi r ement s. ) . Sect i on

626( f ) ( 1) ( H) i s appl i cabl e to wai ver s r equest ed i n connect i on wi t h

an exi t i ncent i ve or ot her empl oyment t er mi nat i on pr ogr amof f er ed t o

a gr oup or cl ass of empl oyees.

3

Pur suant t o 626( f ) ( 1) ( H) , an

empl oyer i s r equi r ed t o pr ovi de t he f ol l owi ng i nf or mat i on t o t he

af f ect ed empl oyees:

( I ) any cl ass, uni t , or gr oup of i ndi vi dual s cover ed bysuch pr ogr am, any el i gi bi l i t y f act or s f or such


9/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

9

pr ogr am, and any t i me l i mi t s appl i cabl e t o suchprogr am; and

( i i ) t he j ob t i t l es and ages of al l i ndi vi dual s el i gi bl e orsel ect ed f or t he pr ogr am, and t he ages of al li ndi vi dual s i n t he same j ob cl assi f i cat i on oror gani zat i onal uni t who ar e not el i gi bl e or sel ect edf or t he pr ogr am.

29 U. S. C. 626( f ) ( 1) ( H) . The r equi r ed di scl osur e i s i nt ended t o

per mi t any af f ect ed empl oyees t o eval uat e the vi abi l i t y of an ADEA

cl ai m bef or e t hey agr ee t o wai ve i t . See Griffin v. Kraft Gen.

Foods, Inc., 62 F. 3d 368, 373 ( 11t h Ci r . 1995) .

Def endant admi t s t hat Boat r i ght and Cof i no di d not di scl ose t he

i nf or mat i on r equi r ed by 626( f ) ( 1) ( H) . ( DSMF [ 22] at 34. )

Speci f i cal l y, t hey di d not i nf or m pl ai nt i f f s about t he gr oup of

empl oyees who wer e bei ng ter mi nated as a r esul t of t he reorgani zat i on

or about empl oyees who wer e not sel ect ed f or t er mi nat i on. ( Id. )

Thus, t he Agreement and Rel ease does not qual i f y as a knowi ng and

vol unt ar y wai ver of t he ADEA cl ai ms assert ed by pl ai nt i f f s, whi ch

cl ai ms ar e di scussed bel ow.

That sai d, t he OWBPA does not appl y t o t he st at e l aw cl ai ms

asser t ed by pl ai nt i f f s. See 29 U. S. C. 626( f ) ( 1) and Oubre, 522

U. S. at 428 ( r ef er r i ng t o i nst ances i n whi ch a r el ease i s ef f ect i ve

as t o some cl ai ms but not as t o ADEA cl ai ms) . See also Long v.

Sears Roebuck & Co., 105 F. 3d 1529, 1545 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( f i ndi ng a

wai ver i nval i d as t o pl ai nt i f f s ADEA cl ai ms but r emandi ng f or


10/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

10

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs on t he non- ADEA cl ai ms) and Clark v. Buffalo Wire

Works Co., Inc., 3 F. Supp. 2d 366, 372 ( W. D. N. Y. 1998) ( t he

val i di t y of a rel ease under [ st ate] l aw i s det er mi ned based on common

l aw cont r act pr i nci pl es) . The wai ver unquest i onabl y ext ends t o

t hose cl ai ms. I t expr essl y appl i es t o al l empl oyment - r el at ed cl ai ms

whi ch Empl oyee has now or whi ch ar i se i n t he f ut ur e agai nst t he

Rel easees i ncl udi ng al l cl ai ms based i n t or t or cont r act , or under

any f eder al , st at e, or l ocal st at ut es, or di nances, r egul at i ons,

Execut i ve Or der s, or common l aw. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at Ex. 1. )

I n Geor gi a, [ w] her e t he t er ms of a wr i t t en [ r el ease] cont r act

ar e cl ear and unambi guous, t he cour t wi l l l ook t o t he [ r el ease]

cont r act al one t o f i nd t he i nt ent i on of t he par t i es. Rice v. Huff,

221 Ga. App. 592, 593 ( 1996) . Based on t he pl ai n l anguage of t he

Agr eement , t he par t i es her e cl ear l y i nt ended t hat pl ai nt i f f s woul d

f or ego any and al l st at e cl ai ms agai nst def endant i n exchange f or t he

benef i t s of f er ed i n t he Rel ease. ( Har r i s Dep. [ 22] at Ex. 1. )

Accor di ngl y, and as t hese cl ai ms are val i dl y wai ved, def endant s

mot i on f or summary j udgment [ 22] on t he st at e l aw cl ai ms i s GRANTED

pur suant t o t he t erms of t he Agreement and Rel ease.

B. Availability of a Separate Cause of Action Under the OWBPA

As an al t er nat i ve cl ai m, pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat def endant s

f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h OWBPA s mi ni mum r equi r ement s i n i t sel f

pr ovi des t he basi s f or an unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m. ( Compl . [ 1]


11/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

11

at 55, 91. ) For r el i ef , pl ai nt i f f s seek a decl ar at or y j udgment

t hat def endant engaged i n unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ces as wel l as

damages sust ai ned as a r esul t of def endant s wr ongf ul act s. ( Id. at

112( b) - ( d) . )

Al t hough t he El event h Ci r cui t has not addr essed t he i ssue, ever y

ot her cour t t o consi der i t has hel d t her e i s no i ndependent cause of

act i on under t he OWBPA f or money damages. See E.E.O.C. v. UBS

Brinson, Inc., Nos. 02Ci v. 3748RMBTK, 02Ci v. 3745RMBTK, 2003 WL 133235,

at *3 ( S. D. N. Y. J an. 15, 2003) ( Ber man, J . ) ( Vi r t ual l y ever y cour t

t hat has deci ded t he i ssue of whet her a vi ol at i on of t he OWBPA, by

i t sel f , est abl i shes age di scr i mi nat i on has concl uded t hat i t does

not . ) and Whitehead v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 187 F. 3d 1184 (10t h

Ci r . 1999) ( hol di ng same) . The Whiteheaddeci s i on i s i l l ust r at i ve.

The pl ai nt i f f s i n Whiteheadaccept ed an ear l y r et i r ement of f er f r om

t hei r empl oyer i n exchange f or si gni ng a rel ease of any ADEA cl ai ms.

Whitehead, 187 F. 3d at 1186- 87. I n subsequent l i t i gat i on, t he

pl ai nt i f f s asser t ed that t he rel ease vi ol at ed the OWBPA because t hei r

empl oyer di d not gi ve t hem t he requi r ed 45 days t o deci de whet her t o

si gn i t . Id. at 1191. To r emedy t hi s vi ol at i on, pl ai nt i f f s

r equest ed t hat t he cour t negat e t he wai ver and award t hem damages,

al t hough pl ai nt i f f s had no separ at e ADEA cl ai m. Id. at 1191- 92.

The cour t r ul ed agai nst pl ai nt i f f s, hol di ng t hat wai ver

pr ovi si ons [ ar e not ] swor ds t hat pr ovi de pl ai nt i f f s wi t h an


12/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

4 See also Syverson v. Intl Bus. Mach. Corp., No. C- 03-04529RMW, 2007 WL 2904252, at *5 ( N. D. Cal . Oct . 3, 2007) ( Whyte,J . ) ( [ T] he OWBPA, by i t s pl ai n t er ms, does not cr eat e an i ndependentcause of act i on. ) and Halstead v. Am. Intl Grp., Inc., No. Ci v. 04-815- SLR, 2005 WL 885200, at *2 ( D. Del . Mar . 11, 2005) ( Robi nson,J . ) ( hol di ng same) .

12

i ndependent cause of act i on f or af f i r mat i ve r el i ef , ot her t han

decl ar at or y or i nj uncti ve r el i ef t o negat e t he val i di t y of t he

wai ver , as i t appl i es t o an ADEA cl ai m. Id. at 1191. As suppor t

f or i t s deci si on, t he Tent h Ci r cui t ci t ed Oubre, i n whi ch t he Supreme

Cour t made cl ear t hat OWBPA governs t he ef f ect under f ederal l aw of

wai ver s or r el eases on ADEA cl ai ms. Id. As t he Ci r cui t Cour t

expl ai ned, Oubre:

st r ongl y i ndi cat es t hat t he OWBPA si mpl y determi nes whether

an empl oyee has, as a mat t er of l aw, wai ved t he r i ght t obr i ng a separat e and di st i nct ADEA cl ai m. The OWBPA doesnot , by i t sel f , det er mi ne i n t he f i r st i nst ance whet her agedi scr i mi nat i on has occur r ed.

Whitehead, 187 F. 3d at 1192. 4

The Cour t i s persuaded by t he Tent h Ci r cui t s r easoni ng i n

Whitehead. The Supreme Cour t s l anguage i n Oubre st r ongl y suggest s

t hat an OWBPA vi ol at i on does not i n and of i t sel f suppor t an act i on

f or money damages agai nst an empl oyer . Moreover , t he decl arat ory

r el i ef r equest ed by pl ai nt i f f s i s moot as a r esul t of t he Cour t s

r ul i ng t hat t he wai ver i s i nval i d. Compare Krane v. Cap. One Serv.,

Inc. , 314 F. Supp. 2d 589, 608- 09 ( E. D. Va. 2004) ( per mi t t i ng an

empl oyee t o br i ng an act i on f or decl ar at or y r el i ef t o avoi d t he


13/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

13

di si ncent i ve t hat mi ght ot her wi se r esul t by appl i cat i on of a t ender

back pr ovi si on a noncompl i ant wai ver ) . Thus, def endant s mot i on

f or summary j udgment [ 22] i s GRANTED t o t he ext ent t hat pl ai nt i f f s

r el y sol el y on the OWBPA vi ol at i on t o est abl i sh an ADEA

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m.

III. PLAINTIFFS ADEA CLAIM: DISPARATE TREATMENT

The ADEA pr ohi bi t s an empl oyer f r omt aki ng an adverse empl oyment

act i on agai nst an empl oyee who i s at l east 40 years ol d because of

t hat empl oyee s age. 29 U. S. C. 623( a) ( 1) ( I t shal l be unl awf ul

f or an empl oyer . . . t o f ai l or r ef use t o hi r e or t o di schar ge any

i ndi vi dual or ot her wi se di scr i mi nat e agai nst any i ndi vi dual wi t h

r espect t o hi s compensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, or pr i vi l eges of

empl oyment , because of such i ndi vi dual s age. ) . The Supr eme Cour t

has hel d t hat t he because of l anguage i n t he st atut e means t hat a

pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat di scr i mi nat i on was t he but - f or cause of

an adver se empl oyment act i on i n or der t o pr evai l on an ADEA cl ai m.

Gross v. FBL Fin. Serv., Inc., 557 U. S. 167, 176 ( 2009) .

Pl ai nt i f f s concede t hat t hey do not have any di r ect evi dence of

age di scr i mi nat i on. ( Pl s. Resp. [ 23] at 6. ) The Cour t t hus appl i es

t he McDonnell Douglas bur den shi f t i ng f r amework. See Sims v. MVM,

Inc., 704 F. 3d 1327, 1332 ( 11t h Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng t he cont i nued

val i di t y of t he McDonnell Douglas appr oach) . Under t hi s f r amework,

pl ai nt i f f s must f i rst establ i sh aprima facie case of di scr i mi nat i on.


14/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

14

Id. I f t hat bur den i s met , def endant must ar t i cul at e a l egi t i mat e,

nondi scr i mi natory reason f or t he chal l enged empl oyment act i on. Id.

Pl ai nt i f f s t hen have an oppor t uni t y t o show t hat def endant s st at ed

r eason f or t he deci si on i s a pr et ext f or di scri mi nat i on. Id. Whi l e

t he f r amework i s a hel pf ul way t o organi ze t he pr oduct i on of

evi dence, [ t ] he bur den of per suasi on al ways remai ns on t he pl ai nt i f f

i n an ADEA case t o pr of f er evi dence suf f i ci ent t o per mi t a r easonabl e

f act f i nder t o concl ude that t he di scr i mi nat or y ani mus was t he

but - f or cause of t he adver se empl oyment . Id. ( ci t i ng Gross, 557

U. S. at 176) .

A. Prima Facie Case

To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on,

pl ai nt i f f s must show t hat : ( 1) t hey ar e a member of t he pr ot ect ed

age gr oup, ( 2) t hey were subj ect ed t o an adver se empl oyment act i on,

( 3) t hey wer e qual i f i ed t o do t hei r j obs, and ( 4) def endant t r eat ed

si mi l ar l y- si t uat ed empl oyees out si de of t he pr ot ect ed cl ass mor e

f avor abl y. Knight v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 330 F. 3d 1313,

1316 ( 11t h Ci r . 2003) . The bur den of est abl i shi ng a pr i ma f aci e case

of di spar at e t r eat ment under t he McDonnell Douglas f r amework i s not

oner ous. Texas Dept of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 253

( 1981) . Never t hel ess, pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o meet i t .

I t i s undi sput ed t hat pl ai nt i f f s wer e over 40 and t hat t hey wer e

qual i f i ed f or t hei r j obs when t hey wer e t er mi nat ed. ( Def . s Br . [ 22]


15/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

5 ( DSMF [ 22] at 18- 20. )

6

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t her e i s a good r eason t hat t hey wer eunabl e t o make t hi s showi ng: t hat i s, t he def endant f ai l ed t o pr ovi det he r equest ed i nf or mat i on concer ni ng t he names and ages ofi ndi vi dual s who wer e r et ai ned not wi t hst andi ng t he r eor gani zat i on.The Cour t wi l l addr ess t hi s al l eged di scover y vi ol at i on f ol l owi ng i t sanal ysi s of t he evi dence, as i t now exi st s, wi t hout t he mi ssi ngi nf or mat i on that pl ai nt i f f s r equest ed f r om def endant .

15

at 17- 18. ) However , pl ai nt i f f s do not pr esent any evi dence of a

si mi l ar l y si t uat ed younger empl oyee who was t r eat ed more f avorabl y.

St at ed mor e apt l y, as t he pl ai nt i f f s j ob dut i es wer e pur por t edl y

aut omat ed and assi gned t o the Nat i onal Ser vi ce Cent er as part of a

cost - savi ng r eor gani zat i on, 5 pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o demonst r at e

ei t her t hat t he above di d not occur and/ or t hat younger empl oyees

wer e r et ai ned i n t hei r posi t i ons, whi l e pl ai nt i f f s wer e l et go. 6

Tat e t est i f i ed vaguel y t hat her f or mer Kai ser col l eague Angi e

Dandy tol d her t hat she had been r epl aced by Sandr a Ri chaur d, who was

under 40. ( Tat e Dep. [ 22] at 44. ) Dandy s out - of - cour t comment i s

i nadmi ssi bl e hear say. See Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F. 3d 1316, 1323- 24

( 11t h Ci r . 1999) ( def i ni ng hear say and di scussi ng t he ci r cumst ances

when a cour t may pr oper l y consi der i t ) . Pl ai nt i f f has not provi ded

a st at ement f r om Dandy or any ot her i ndi cat i on t hat Dandy wi l l be

avai l abl e t o t est i f y at t r i al . Thus, i t woul d be i nappr opr i at e f or

t he Cour t t o r el y on Dandy s al l eged comment on summar y j udgment .

Id. Mor eover , pl ai nt i f f s have not pr oduced any evi dence of


16/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

7 Agai n, pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat i t i s i mpossi bl e t o make t hespeci f i c r esponse t hat was cal l ed f or because of t he def endant sr ef usal t o pr ovi de t he i nf or mat i on.

16

Ri chaur d s act ual age, backgr ound or sal ar y such t hat t he Cour t coul d

det er mi ne whet her she i s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o ei t her pl ai nt i f f . 7

Pl ai nt i f f s cor r ectl y not e t hat t he f ai l ur e t o pr oduce a

compar at or does not necessar i l y doom [ t hei r ] case. Smith v.

Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F. 3d 1321, 1328 ( 11t h Ci r . 2011) . But i n

t he absence of a compar at or , t her e must be some ot her evi dence t hat

creat es a t r i abl e i ssue concer ni ng def endant s di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent .

Id. The onl y evi dence t hat pl ai nt i f f s ci t e i s def endant s f ai l ur e

t o meet i t s obl i gat i ons under t he OWBPA. ( Id. at 9- 10. ) As

di scussed above, an empl oyer s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he OWBPA i s

not i n i t sel f evi dence of di scri mi nat i on. See Whitehead, 187 F. 3d at

1192 ( The OWBPA does not , by i t sel f , det er mi ne i n t he f i r st i nst ance

whet her age di scr i mi nat i on has occur r ed. ) .

As t here i s no comparat or and no ot her evi dence of

di scr i mi nat or y act i on or i nt ent on t he par t of def endant , t he

l at t er s mot i on f or summary j udgment [ 22] as t o t he ADEA cl ai m woul d

nor mal l y be gr ant ed based on t he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ur e t o pr ove t hi s

essent i al pr ong of t he t est .


17/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

17

B. Plaintiffs Contention That Defendants Discovery Violation

Rendered Plaintiff Unable to Make the Necessary Showing

I n expl ai ni ng why t hey were unabl e t o pr oduce t he ages of

potent i al comparators whom t he def endant mi ght have r et ai ned,

pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat whi l e def endant was t he par t y t hat possessed

t hi s i nf or mat i on, i t had r ef used t o pr oduce t hi s i nf or mat i on dur i ng

di scover y. Speci f i cal l y, t hr ough an i nt er r ogat or y, pl ai nt i f f s had

asked def endant t o pr ovi de t he names, ages, and posi t i ons of

i ndi vi dual s who wer e r et ai ned dur i ng t he r est r uct ur i ng t hat l ed t o

pl ai nt i f f s di scharge:

14. Pl ease pr ovi de t he names, al ong wi t ht he ages, posi t i ons, and dat es of hi r e of al lt he i ndi vi dual s t hat wer e r et ai ned dur i ng t hesame al l eged or gani zat i onal r est r uct ur i ng t hatr esul t ed i n Pl ai nt i f f s di schar ge.

Response: Def endant speci f i cal l y obj ect s t ot hi s r equest t o t he ext ent t hat suchI nt er r ogat or y ( 1) seeks i nf or mat i on not r el evantt o the subj ect mat t er of t hi s act i on norr easonabl y cal cul at ed t o l ead t o t he di scover yof admi ssi bl e evi dence and ( 2) i s over l y br oad,bur densome and oppressi ve.

Df dt s 1st I nt er r og. Answer s t o Pl t CH, 9: 14; Df dt s 1stI nt er r og. Answer s t o Pl t Tat e. , 9: 14.

( Pl s. Resp. t o Def . s Mot . Summ. J udg. [ 23] at 13. )

Cl ear l y, and not wi t hst andi ng t he def endant s asser t i on i n i t s

r esponse t o t he cont r ar y, t he above i nf ormat i on was qui t e r el evant t o

t he pi vot al i ssue i n t he l i t i gat i on nor does i t seem br oad,

bur densome, or oppr essi ve t o have asked t he def endant t o pr ovi de t he


18/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

18

r equest ed answer . Thus, t he Cour t wi l l assume t hat def endant had an

obl i gat i on under Rul e 26 t o di scl ose t he request ed i nf or mat i on, and

wi l l al so assume t hat i t wr ongl y f ai l ed t o f ul f i l l t hi s

responsi bi l i t y.

Yet , i t al so i s t ext book, Di scover y 101 t hat a pl ai nt i f f

cannot wai t unt i l af t er a summary j udgment mot i on i s f i l ed by a

def endant t o compl ai n t hat t he def endant has f ai l ed t o pr oduce

necessar y di scover y. Nor can t he pl ai nt i f f t ypi cal l y pr evai l by

ar gui ng t hat her i nabi l i t y t o i dent i f y and pr oduce t he evi dence t hat

mi ght have def eated t he def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment was

due t o t he l at t er s di scover y vi ol at i on. I nst ead, a par t y who

bel i eves t hat t he opposi ng par t y has wr ongl y ref used t o pr ovi de

r equest ed di scover y i s expect ed t o f i l e a mot i on t o compel , pr i or t o

t he f i l i ng of t he opponent s mot i on f or summary j udgment .

I ndeed, t hi s Cour t s l ocal r ul es r equi r e t hat a mot i on t o compel

di scover y must be f i l ed bef or e the end of di scover y or wi t hi n

f our t een days af t er ser vi ce of t he di scl osur e or di scover y r esponse

upon whi ch t he obj ect i on i s based. LR 37. 1B, N. D. Ga. I n t hi s case,

def endant s al l egedl y def i ci ent di scover y response occur r ed on

Oct ober 24, 2012 [ 23- 3] , and di scover y ended on December 21, 2012

[ 20] . Def endant f i l ed i t s mot i on f or f or summary j udgment on J anuary

31, 2013. Cl ear l y, i f pl ai nt i f f s wer e unhappy wi t h def endant s

di scover y responses, t hey had ampl e t i me t o f i l e a mot i on t o compel


19/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

8 Deci si ons of t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t r ender ed pr i or t o Oct ober 1,1981 are bi ndi ng pr ecedent i n t he El event h Ci r cui t . Bonner v. Cityof Pritchard, Ala., 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 ( 11t h Ci r . 1981) .

19

pr i or t o t he dat e t hat t he def endant f i l ed i t s mot i on f or summar y

j udgment .

I n shor t , del ay i n br i ngi ng a mot i on t o compel under Rul e 37

can r esul t i n a wai ver of a par t y s r i ght t o avai l hi msel f of t he

rul e. Price v. Maryland Cas. Co., 561 F. 2d 609, 611 ( 5t h Ci r .

1977) . 8 See also Reuber v. United States, 787 F. 2d 599, 601 (D. C.

Ci r . 1986) ( i t was i ncumbent upon [pl ai nt i f f ] t o move t o compel

f ur t her di scover y r esponses wi t h r easonabl e di spat ch) and De La Rosa

v. St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc., No. 1: 04cv540, 2005 WL 2284205, at

*8 ( E. D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2005) ( Gi bl i n, Mag. J . ) ( a par t y s at t acks on .

. . di scover y t act i cs ar e wai ved i nsof ar as [ t he par t y] di d not f i l e

a mot i on t o compel or pr esent any di scover y di sput e t o the cour t f or

r esol ut i on) .

Thus, t hi s Cour t woul d normal l y i gnor e t he pl ai nt i f f s excuses

f or t hei r absence of evi dence t o count er t he def endant s ar gument

t hat pl ai nt i f f s have not pr oven t hei r case. The Cour t wi l l not do so

her e, however . Fi r st , i t i s obvi ous that i n a case al l egi ng age

di scri mi nat i on, a def endant shoul d pr ovi de t he pl ai nt i f f wi t h

i nf ormat i on r egardi ng the ages of empl oyees who were retai ned or

hi r ed t o r epl ace t he pl ai nt i f f . Second, as t he i mpet us f or t hi s


20/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

9 The same concer ns woul d prompt a deni al of def endant s mot i onf or summar y j udgment on pl ai nt i f f s di spar at e i mpact cl ai m.

20

l awsui t was t he exact same omi ssi on- - def endant s i ni t i al f ai l ur e t o

compl y wi t h a f eder al l aw r equi r i ng i t t o gi ve t he pl ai nt i f f s t hi s

pr eci se i nf or mat i on at t he t i me that def endant t er mi nat ed pl ai nt i f f s

and obt ai ned t he l at t er s wai ver of any ADEA cl ai m- - def endant was

cl ear l y pushi ng t he envel ope i n cont i nui ng t o r ef use t o pr ovi de t hi s

i nf or mat i on i n response t o an obvi ousl y r el evant di scover y r equest .

Cl ear l y, pl ai nt i f f s counsel s f ai l ur e t o f i l e an appr opr i at e mot i on

t o compel was sl oppy and amat eur i sh. Yet , def endant s f ai l ur e t o

pr oduce t hi s i nf or mat i on har dl y put s i t i n a bet t er l i ght .

Thi r d, and perhaps most si gni f i cant l y, t he Cour t has no i dea

what happened i n t hi s case. I t woul d be one t hi ng i f t he def endant

had pr ovi ded af f i davi t s or i nf or mat i on gi vi ng t he Cour t some f i r m

i dea of who was l ef t st andi ng, and t hei r ages, af t er t he

r eor gani zat i on had ended. But def endant never does so. I t si mpl y

st at es, i n a concl usor y f ashi on, t hat i t di d not di scri mi nat e based

on age and har angues t he pl ai nt i f f s f or f ai l i ng t o of f er evi dence t o

t he cont r ar y, al bei t t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e i n no posi t i on t o do so, as

t he def endant s r ef used t o pr ovi de t hem t hi s i nf or mat i on.

For al l of t he above r easons, t he Cour t i s wi l l i ng t o deny

def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment 9 t o per mi t t he pl ai nt i f f s

anot her oppor t uni t y t o obt ai n t he i nf or mat i on t hat i s necessary t o


21/22AO 72A(Rev.8/82)

21

enabl e the Cour t t o render a deci si on as t o whet her t her e r emai ns a

di sput ed i ssue of mat er i al f act . Yet , t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul t hat

def endant i ncur r ed cost s i n f i l i ng i t s mot i on f or summar y j udgment ,

and had pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on t o compel , as t hey shoul d have

done, def endant woul d not have i ncur r ed t hese unnecessary expenses.

As i t i s pl ai nt i f f s f aul t t hat t hese cost wer e i ncur r ed, t he Cour t

makes i t a condi t i on f or any resumpt i on of di scover y that pl ai nt i f f s,

or t hei r counsel , compensat e t he def endant f or t he r easonabl e cost

t he l at t er i ncur r ed i n f i l i ng t he summar y j udgment mot i on. I f

pl ai nt i f f s do not wi sh t o do so, t hen def endant wi l l be per mi t t ed t o

r ef i l e i t s or i gi nal mot i on f or summar y j udgment and t hat mot i on wi l l

be gr ant ed, based on t he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ur e of pr oof .

Accor di ngl y, t he def endant shal l pr ovi de t he pl ai nt i f f s, by

October 15, 2013, wi t h a det ai l ed st at ement set t i ng out i t s

r easonabl e cost s and expenses i ncur r ed i n f i l i ng t he mot i on f or

summar y j udgment . Pl ai nt i f f s shal l r espond by October 31, as to

whet her i t wi l l consent t o pay t hose f ees or whet her t hey wi l l pay a

f ee, but cont est t he r easonabl eness of t he f ees present ed.

CONCLUSION

For t he above r easons, t he Cour t DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Def endant s Mot i on f or Summary J udgment [ 22] . The par t i es shal l

adher e to the deadl i nes set out above f or pur poses of det er mi ni ng how

t he case wi l l pr oceed i n t he f ut ur e.


22/22

22

SO ORDERED, t hi s 22nd day of Sept ember , 2013.

/ s/ J ul i e E. Car nesJ ULI E E. CARNESCHI EF UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

Documents

Cummings v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of GA