Douglas v. American Cyanamid Co., Civ. No. B-78-465.
Citation | 472 F. Supp. 298 |
Decision Date | 08 May 1979 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. B-78-465. |
Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut) |
Parties | Robert P. DOUGLAS v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, Donald Faccio and Donald E. Rowland. |
David S. Golub, Silver, Golub & Sandak, Stamford, Conn., for plaintiff.
Linda Randell, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for defendants.
Plaintiff, formerly employed by the defendant corporation, has filed an action for monetary damages and injunctive relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act hereinafter ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint are as follows: Plaintiff was employed by the American Cyanamid Company hereinafter American Cyanamid from 1957 to December, 1977, for the first ten years at the Research Laboratories and from October, 1970, to December 31, 1977, for the Davis & Geck division. At the time of his termination he was 58 years old and employed as a design engineer, earning $21,500 per year. On or about June 17, 1977, plaintiff received a notice of termination effective December 16, 1977, from his supervisor, defendant Faccio, for alleged poor performance. Defendant Faccio allegedly disseminated to various individuals false accusations in a memorandum dated June 22, 1977, which accusations Faccio is claimed to have retracted at a later date. On or about December 16, 1977, defendant Rowland prepared an unemployment notice which stated that plaintiff had been terminated because of his inability to satisfy all demands of the job. Plaintiff's first count arises under ADEA; plaintiff's second count is based upon defamation. Among the relief sought is: (1) reinstatement with full seniority and benefits; (2) monetary compensation for full wages and other benefits; and (3) compensatory and punitive damages for the damage to plaintiff's reputation and mental anguish, and other financial loss suffered by the plaintiff.
Defendant American Cyanamid Company has moved to: (1) dismiss or strike the prayer for compensatory and punitive damages with respect to Count I; (2) dismiss Count II for lack of pendent jurisdiction; and (3) strike certain allegedly immaterial allegations in the complaint. Defendants Faccio and Rowland have filed identical motions.1 For the reasons stated herein, the motions to dismiss the prayer for compensatory and punitive damages with respect to Count I and to dismiss Count II are granted; defendants' motions to strike allegedly immaterial allegations in the complaint are denied.
Defendants have moved to strike plaintiff's request for punitive and psychological damages. There has been much disagreement among the federal judiciary as to whether or not punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering are recoverable under ADEA. The provision which has spawned this controversy is 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), which reads in pertinent part:
Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b), part of the Fair Labor Standards Act hereinafter FLSA, provides in relevant part, "Any employer who violates . . . this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages." Therefore, the statutory framework of §§ 216(b) and 626(b) provides for double recovery in cases of wilful age discrimination.
Eight district courts have held that a plaintiff may receive punitive and/or psychological damages for ADEA violations. Morton v. Sheboygan Memorial Hospital, 458 F.Supp. 804, 807 (E.D.Wis.1978); Kennedy v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 449 F.Supp. 1008, 1009-11 (D.Colo.1978); Buchholz v. Symons Manufacturing Co., 445 F.Supp. 706, 713-14 (E.D. Wis.1978); Walker v. Pettit Construction Co., Inc., 437 F.Supp. 730 (D.S.C.1977); Coates v. National Cash Register, 433 F.Supp. 655, 663-64 (W.D.Va.1977); Bertrand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 419 F.Supp. 1123, 1132-33 (N.D.Ill.1976), aff'd on rehearing, 432 F.Supp. 952 (N.D.Ill. 1977); Murphy v. American Motors Sales Corp., 410 F.Supp. 1403, 1404-06 (N.D.Ga. 1976); Combes v. Griffin Television, Inc., 421 F.Supp. 841 (W.D.Okl.1976).2 These courts have relied upon the reasoning of the District Court for the District of New Jersey in Rogers v. Exxon Research & Engineering Co., 404 F.Supp. 324, 327-33 (D.N.J. 1975), sometimes even after its reversal by the Third Circuit, found at 550 F.2d 834, 839-42 (3d Cir. 1977). The district court in Rogers held:
404 F.Supp. at 327. The court's theory was premised upon its belief that the primary goal of ADEA was to alleviate the psychological damage inflicted by age discrimination:
A similar result has been obtained with respect to punitive damages under ADEA. Murphy v. American Motors Sales Corp., 570 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1978); Dean v. American Security Insurance Co., supra, 559 F.2d at 1339-40; Riddle v. Getty Refining & Marketing Co., supra; Ellis v. Philippine Airlines, supra; Fellows v. Medford Corp., 431 F.Supp. 199, 202 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelly v. American Standard, Inc., s. 79-4005
...559 F.2d 1036, 1039-40 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1066, 98 S.Ct. 1243, 55 L.Ed.2d 767 (1978); Douglas v. American Cyanamid Co., 472 F.Supp. 298, 303 (D.C.Conn.1979). Courts awarding liquidated damages have not required proof of an employer's knowledge of the Act, but have looke......
-
Mazza v. Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., 94 Civ. 8463 (BDP).
...Federal courts have varied widely on their decisions to hear pendant state defamation claims. See generally Douglas v. American Cyanamid Co., 472 F.Supp. 298, 304 (D.Conn.1979). Some courts have refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under circumstances similar to the case at bar. Se......
-
Pascoe v. Hoyle Lowdermilk, Inc., Civ. A. No. 83-K-2272.
...Trust Co., 542 F.Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y.1982); Allen v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 539 F.Supp. 57 (S.D.N. Y.1981); Douglas v. American Cyanamid Co., 472 F.Supp. 298 (D.Conn.1979). Defendant asserts, and I agree, that this analysis extends to pendent state claims which permit recovery beyond that co......
-
Deutsch v. Carl Zeiss, Inc., 80 Civ. 3051 (JMC).
...Co., 550 F.2d 834, 841-42 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1022, 98 S.Ct. 749, 54 L.Ed.2d 770 (1978); Douglas v. American Cyanamid Co., 472 F.Supp. 298, 300-02 (D.Conn.1979); Riddle v. Getty Refining & Marketing Co., 460 F.Supp. 678, 679-80 (N.D.Okl.1978), and second, recovery of comp......