Seyfarth Synopsis: Relief sought in age discrimination litigation is limited to the specific remedies described in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").
In a ruling on April 26, 2016, in K.H., et al., v. Secretary of The Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 15-CV-02740 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Judge Tigar dismissed with prejudice any claim of relief sought by Plaintiffs that was not a specific remedy under the ADEA.
Case Background
In 2015, the named Plaintiff, K.H., a 47-year-old Federal U.S. Air Marshal ("FAM"), filed the complaint on behalf of himself and an estimated 300 other air marshals, alleging that air marshals over the age of 40 were disproportionately affected when the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), closed six field offices with the highest percentage of older FAMs. The Plaintiffs were given as little as 10 days to decide whether they would accept job reassignments, some of which were cross-country.
The Plaintiffs' complaint – brought for relief on a collective action basis – included claims for all relief possible under the ADEA, including lost wages, a bid for "any relief that this court deems appropriate," and two paragraphs describing the disruption the closures had on the FAMs' families and their health. The DHS asked the Court to dismiss the suit on the basis that it was brought on a theory of disparate impact, which is not recognized under the ADEA. It further asserted that K.H.'s damages claim failed because monetary relief under the ADEA is limited to lost wages and K.H. did not lose his job as a result of the field office closures.
The Ruling
In his ruling, Judge Tigar dismissed the lost wages claims of four air marshals without prejudice, and dismissed the FAMs' bid for "any relief that this court deems appropriate" with prejudice. Id. at 8. Judge Tigar determined that the air marshals could only pursue relief for: legal costs, reinstatement, promotion, and unpaid minimum wages or overtime, as those are the specific remedies described in the ADEA. Accordingly, the Court also dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs' compensatory damages claim for alleged age discrimination. At the same time, however, Judge Tigar declined to dismiss the two paragraphs of the complaint describing the negative effects of the closures, agreeing with Plaintiffs that these paragraphs were not requesting compensation for the alleged effects.
Implications For Employers
Lay-offs and personnel decisions impacting large groups of workers are "custom-made" situations where collective actions may be brought by plaintiffs under the ADEA. The ruling in K.H., et al. is a win for employers in that it limits the claims of relief that plaintiffs may seek from employers in age discrimination suits.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.