Mogley v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
| Citation | 553 F. Supp. 1045 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-873C(3).,82-873C(3). |
| Parties | Robert J. MOGLEY, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Lawrence J. Fleming, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiff.
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, William R. Sullivan, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen & Chubb, Michael P. Casey, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Both plaintiff and defendant have supplied the Court with memorandum in support of their respective positions.
Plaintiff's complaint, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., alleges that defendant coerced plaintiff into agreeing to an early retirement package as an alternative to defendant's termination of plaintiff. Plaintiff avers this action on the part of defendant was the manifestation of defendant's discrimination against plaintiff because of his age. Defendant contends that plaintiff's action is barred by a release plaintiff signed when he took early retirement and that plaintiff's action is not maintainable in this Court because plaintiff did not file a timely charge of discrimination as is required by the ADEA. The Court finds that resolution of this second issue disposes of the matter.
Before an ADEA plaintiff may maintain an action in federal district court, he or she must first have filed a charge of discrimination within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1). This requirement operates much like a statute of limitations and is not jurisdictional. Nielsen v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 603 F.2d 741, 743 (8th Cir.1979). The real issue in this matter is when the 180 day period began to run. Defendant contends that the period began to run when defendant communicated its offer to plaintiff on July 27, 1981, to take early retirement or face dismissal. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues for one of two dates: either August 19, 1981, when plaintiff signed a release and an agreement to take early retirement or on January 31, 1982, when his employment with defendant officially ended. The Court is governed by recent Supreme Court authority in deciding this issue in defendant's favor.
In Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the similar 180 day period of Title VII begins to run when an allegedly discriminatorily motivated decision to terminate an employee is made and communicated to the employee, notwithstanding the employee's continuing work for the employer up to the date of termination. Id. at 259, 101 S.Ct. at 503. Thus, when a decision to terminate an employee is made and communicated to the employee in advance of the termination date, the employee, if he believes the decision is the product of discrimination, must file a charge within 180 days of the date on which he learns of the decision. The decision, explained the Court, is the discriminatory conduct, and the termination merely the result of it. See also Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981). The Ricks decision subsequently has been applied by several courts to ADEA cases similar to the one at bar. See e.g., Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 662 F.2d 584, 593 (9th Cir.1981); Anness v. United Steelworkers of America, 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cases 1340 (N.D.Ohio 1981).
Exhibit two, incorporated into plaintiff's complaint, demonstrates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Runyan v. NCR Corp.
... ... conditioned on a waiver of petitioner's cause of action under Title VII. In determining the effectiveness of any such waiver, a court would ... Id. See also, Price v. Litton, 694 F.2d 963 (4th Cir.1982); Mogley v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 553 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (E.D.Mo.1983); Graves ... ...
-
Treadwell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... Dale v. Chicago Tribune Company, 666 F. Supp. 284 797 F.2d 458 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, ... Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 256-59, 101 S.Ct. 498, 503-05, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (Title VII case); Mogley v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 553 F.Supp. 1045, 1046-47 (E.D.Mo.), aff'd, ... ...
-
Welty v. SF & G., INC.
... ... Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ("Title VII"), the ... 694 F.2d at 965 ... —In Mogley v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 553 F.Supp. 1045 (E.D.Mo.1983), defendant ... ...
-
Monnig v. Kennecott Corp.
... ... Commerce & Indust. Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 1317, 1319-20 (2d Cir.1975). Moreover, there must be no ... This makes Connecticut a "deferral state." Title 29 U.S.C. § 633(b) provides that 60 days must elapse after state ... However, they have consistently been applied to ADEA cases. Mogley v. Chicago Title Ins ... ...