E.E.O.C. v. First Catholic Slovak Ladies Ass'n

• Decision Date: 10 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-3534,81-3534
• Citation: 694 F.2d 1068
• Parties: 30 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 819, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,175 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1068

694 F.2d 1068

30 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 819,

30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,175

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-3534.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1982.

Decided Dec. 10, 1982.

Michael J. Connolly, (General Counsel), Phillip B. Sklover, Vella M. Fink, William H. Ng, Judy Trent Ellis (argued), EEOC, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Donald F. Woodcock (argued), Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.

Before ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and MORTON, Chief District Judge. ^*

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the District Court's summary judgment order dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The EEOC alleges that the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Association (the Association or FCSLA) has violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq. The EEOC sues on behalf of two former officers of the Association who are between the ages of 66 and 70 years old. The FCSLA is a benevolent association whose members must be either Catholic and of Slovak descent or married to a Catholic of Slovak descent. A non-profit society, the FCSLA sells insurance to its members, maintains various charitable institutions for the elderly and supports educational and religious opportunities.

The FCSLA is governed by three distinct bodies: the Convention, the Board of Directors and the Court of Appeals. The Convention is composed of elected delegates from the many branches around the country. The Convention meets every four years to elect the fourteen members of the Board of Directors who serve until the next election. The Board meets twice yearly to make policy decisions for the Association and to hear complaints by and against members. The Court of Appeals entertains complaints arising out of decisions of the Board.

Each of the directors on the Board also serves as an officer of the Association in some specific capacity such as Secretary, Chaplain or Auditor. The daily management of the Association is the responsibility of seven of these officers who serve on the Executive Committee: the President, Chaplain, Secretary, Secretary of the Junior Order, Treasurer and two Trustees. Each of these officers receives a salary commensurate with the extent of her other duties. The Secretary and the Secretary of the Junior Order, the individuals represented by the EEOC in this action, received $25,000 and $15,000 per year, respectively. Their duties included managing the Association's offices, maintaining the records, collecting Association funds and publishing reports.

The EEOC complaint centers on the following provision of the Association's by-laws:

Any delegate of the Association who is 66 years or under on the first day of the new term is eligible for nomination, election, or appointment to the Board of Directors.

(App. at 176.) The problem is not, however, that the Directors must be 66 years old or younger. Rather, the difficulty arises because this provision indirectly requires that officers also meet the age limitation since all officers must also be on the Board of Directors. (By-laws Article X(a), App. at 174.) The EEOC challenges this age restriction as being in violation of the following statutory provisions on age discrimination:

(a) It shall be unlawful for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age.

29 U.S.C. Sec. 623(a). The ADEA prohibition on age discrimination applies to employees under the age of 70. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 631(a). An employee is defined in the Act simply as "An individual employed by an employer," and an employer is defined as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce." 29 U.S.C. Secs. 630(f) and (b). Since these definitions leave great room for interpretation, the issue in this case becomes that of determining whether the salaried officers of the FCSLA should be considered to be employees under the ADEA.

The District Court below found that the directors and therefore the officers of the FCSLA were not employees protected by the ADEA primarily because they assumed office by an elective process and because directorships have traditionally been viewed as employer rather than employee positions. The court below found persuasive by analogy the Eleventh Circuit decision in Hishon v. King & Spalding, 678 F.2d 1022 (1982). In that case the Title VII prohibitions on sex discrimination were held not to apply to a law firm partnership decision not to elevate a female attorney to the position of partner. The District Court in the case at hand...