Lancaster v. Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 86-5020

Decision Date21 January 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-5020,86-5020
Citation809 F.2d 539
Parties42 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1472, 88 A.L.R.Fed. 407, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,789, 8 Employee Benefits Ca 1179 Kenneth LANCASTER, Appellant, v. BUERKLE BUICK HONDA CO., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Neil P. Convery, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

Gregory J. Stenmoe, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before ROSS and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, * Senior District Judge.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Kenneth Lancaster appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Buerkle Buick Honda Co. (Buerkle Buick). We affirm.

Lancaster began work for Buerkle Buick in 1971 as a service manager. On December 30, 1983, at the age of fifty-three, Lancaster's employment was terminated by Buerkle Buick. Lancaster claims he was terminated because of his age. Buerkle Buick maintains the decision was a result of Lancaster's unsatisfactory work performance and the recommendation of an independent consulting firm in connection with reorganization of the service department.

After his termination Lancaster read and signed a termination agreement. The agreement obligated Buerkle Buick to pay Lancaster nearly $39,000 in severance pay and to pay six months medical insurance premiums for Lancaster. Buerkle Buick also agreed not to restrict Lancaster's right to work for a competitor and not to contest any claim by Lancaster for unemployment compensation. In exchange Lancaster agreed to cooperate in any related audit of Buerkle Buick and to preserve the confidentiality of information learned during his employment. Lancaster also agreed to release Buerkle Buick from "each and every claim of any kind * * * resulting from [his] termination of employment."

Approximately nine months after he was terminated Lancaster filed this action in district court claiming the release was invalid and setting out various claimed violations by Buerkle Buick of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Program (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461. Lancaster also made claims for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for misrepresentation. The district court granted Buerkle Buick's motion for summary judgment, finding the termination agreement contained a valid and enforceable release barring Lancaster's suit.

Lancaster initially argues he cannot release his ADEA claim. The ADEA incorporates by reference the enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626(b). Both the FLSA and the ADEA are silent on whether statutory claims may be privately released. The FLSA, however, has been interpreted to prohibit waiver through private releases of certain FLSA statutory coverages and rights. See, e.g., Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 1962, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 745, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1447, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 114, 66 S.Ct. 925, 928, 90 L.Ed. 1114 (1946); Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707, 65 S.Ct. 895, 902, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945). By implication, Lancaster argues, an employee's statutory rights under the ADEA are similarly not waivable through an unsupervised private release. We disagree.

This court has recently held ADEA claims involving bona fide factual disputes over the intent and motive of an employer for a termination may be validly settled in the manner undertaken here by Lancaster and Buerkle Buick. Moore v. McGraw Edison Co., 804 F.2d 1026, 1033 (8th Cir.1986); see also Runyan v. National Cash Register Corp., 787 F.2d 1039 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 178, 95 L.Ed.2d 114 (1986); 50 Fed.Reg. 40,870-71 (1985). Moore controls this case and permits the unsupervised release of Lancaster's ADEA claim.

Lancaster next argues his ADEA claim is not barred because the termination agreement fails to mention expressly any release of claims under the ADEA. Moore does not require the termination agreement specifically to mention the ADEA. See Moore, 804 F.2d at 1033; see also Runyan, 787 F.2d at 1044 n. 10. We conclude Lancaster's broad release of all claims resulting from his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • American Airlines, Inc. v. Cardoza-Rodriguez
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 3 Septiembre 1997
    ...history); see also S.Rep. No. 101-293, see supra note 4, at 32 (disapproving of the approach adopted in Lancaster v. Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.1987)). Instead, Congress enacted a "floor" of specific procedures an employer must follow before an employee's waiver is effec......
  • Long v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 11 Marzo 1997
    ...Credit Corp., 930 F.2d 358, 362 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 859, 112 S.Ct. 177, 116 L.Ed.2d 139 (1991); Lancaster v. Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928, 107 S.Ct. 3212, 96 L.Ed.2d 699 (1987); and Runyan v. National Cash Register Corp., 787 F.......
  • Campbell v. State Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 22 Noviembre 2011
    ...See Pilon, 710 F.2d at 468; Ulvin v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 943 F.2d 862, 867 (8th Cir. 1991); Lancaster v. Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539, 541 (8th Cir. 1987). The "Grievance Settlement Agreement" stated:The State of Iowa Department of Correctional Services, Third Judicia......
  • Nicholson v. CPC Intern. Inc., 88-5588
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 10 Julio 1989
    ...of the language ... and the absence of fraud or undue influence. 856 F.2d at 522 (citations omitted); see also Lancaster v. Buerkle Buick Honda Co., 809 F.2d 539, 541 (8th Cir.) (ADEA substantive waiver valid where there was no "exploitation or overreaching"), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928, 10......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT