Raymond v. Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-1282-JWB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
| Parties | DONETTA RAYMOND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., and SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. |
Before the court is Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. (Doc. 524.) The motion is fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 525, 534, 540.) For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in this order.
This action is brought by twenty-four former Wichita-based aerospace engineers and other salaried, non-management employees, for themselves ("the Named Plaintiffs"1) and collectively on behalf of others similarly situated, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The Defendants are Plaintiffs' former employer Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. and its owner, Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Spirit"). The Named Plaintiffs and others who have opted-in to the collective action assert age discrimination claims, under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories, in connectionwith Spirit's termination of their employment in July of 2013 and its subsequent refusal to rehire them. Some of the Plaintiffs additionally bring individual claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and/or the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The amended complaint contains nine claims for relief, which are summarized below. (Doc. 522.)
First claim: Collective action for age discrimination in termination - disparate treatment. Plaintiffs' first claim alleges disparate treatment under the ADEA in connection with Plaintiffs' termination from employment in a July 25, 2013, reduction-in-force ("RIF"). The claim is asserted on behalf of all Named Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs. (Doc. 522 at 74.) It alleges that Spirit "designed and implemented a plan to terminate older employees such as the Plaintiffs" in the belief that this would save money under Spirit's self-insured employee health insurance plan. To that end, Spirit allegedly engaged in several pretexts for discrimination, including by "designating" hundreds of older employees represented by the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace ("SPEEA"), such that the seniority of these employees did not protect them from termination in a RIF, and by claiming to eliminate Plaintiffs' jobs but actually hiring younger workers to fill those jobs. Plaintiffs allege their age made a difference in Spirit's selection of them for termination in July 2013, such that Spirit's actions violated 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). (Doc. 522 at 74-76.)
Second claim: Collective action for age discrimination in termination - disparate impact. The second claim alleges that Spirit selected older employees for termination using unreasonable, age-neutral factors that caused the terminations to disparately affect older workers. These factors included: consideration of costly medical conditions; "designating" all workers with a "C" retention rating, thereby preventing more experienced workers from being placed in a moreprotected retention category; relying on lower performance and retention ratings from recent reviews, even for workers with a history of solid prior performance; relying on subjective criteria in performance ratings, including "versatility" and "criticality," and giving managers inadequate guidance on how to avoid age discrimination. These acts were allegedly in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §623(a)(2). (Id. at 77-78.)
Third claim: Collective action alleging invalid ADEA waivers. The third claim alleges that ADEA waivers signed by 20 Named Plaintiffs and 69 opt-in Plaintiffs were invalid under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) amendments to the ADEA. (Id. at 79-80.)
Fourth claim: Collective action for age discrimination in failure to hire - disparate treatment. The fourth claim alleges that the Named Plaintiffs and 64 opt-in Plaintiffs, after their termination in July 2013, either applied for one or more open positions with Spirit or were deterred from doing so by Spirit's discriminatory practices, and that their age made a difference in Spirit's decision not to rehire them. These "Rehire Plaintiffs" allege that Spirit's conduct violated 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). (Doc. 522 at 82-83.)
Fifth claim: Collective action for age discrimination in failure to hire - disparate impact. The fifth claim alleges that "[w]hile planning the July 2013 RIF, Spirit developed a policy, procedure, and/or practice of rejecting applications for open positions from individuals terminated in the July 2013 RIF." Spirit's "failure and refusal to rehire former employees terminated in the July 2013 RIF had a significant adverse impact on the work opportunities of former Spirit employees age 40 or above, including the Rehire Plaintiffs." This conduct was "not based on 'reasonable factors other than age' and violated the ADEA," 29 U.S.C. §623(a)(2). (Doc. 522 at 84.)
Sixth claim: Individual ADA claims for termination because of disability. Three Named Plaintiffs (Raymond, Hatcher, and Jackson) and one opt-in Plaintiff (Doyon) claim that Spirit discriminated against them on the basis of a disability in connection with their termination in July 2013. Plaintiffs allege that in July 2013, Plaintiffs Raymond, Jackson, and Doyon had one or more disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, that they could perform the essential functions of their jobs with or without reasonable accommodation for their disabilities, and that Spirit violated the ADA by terminating them on the basis of their disabilities (and also by terminating Jackson for requesting reasonable accommodations). Additionally, Hatcher's husband had disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, and Spirit allegedly violated the ADA by terminating her and Jackson "on the basis of their association with family members with disabilities . . . " (Doc. 522 at 85-86.)
Seventh claim: Individual claims for willful violation of the FMLA - retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff Hatcher alleges she took intermittent FMLA leave in 2012 to care for her husband's serious medical condition. Plaintiff Jackson alleges he took FMLA leave in 2012 to care for his own and for his daughter's serious medical conditions. These two "Retaliation Plaintiffs" allege that Spirit decided to terminate them "at least in part because of and in retaliation for their use, request to use and/or notice to Spirit of their intent to use FMLA leave to which they were entitled." (Id. at 87.) The Retaliation Plaintiffs allege this conduct was willful and that it violated the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2615(a)(2) and 2617(c)(2).
Eighth claim: Individual ADA claims for discriminatory refusal to hire. Fourteen Named Plaintiffs and 19 opt-in Plaintiffs, who are named in paragraph 43 of the amended complaint and referred to as "the ADA Rehire Plaintiffs," allege that they each applied for at least one open position with Spirit after their terminations in July 2013, or were deterred from doing so by Spirit's discriminatory behavior; that at the time of their termination they each had one or more disabilitiesor were associated with family members who had disabilities as defined by the ADA; that Spirit's knowledge of their disabilities or association with family members with disabilities made a difference in Spirit's refusal to rehire them, in Spirit discouraging them from applying for open positions, and "in Spirit's establishment of policies and practices screening out applicants and potential applicants with disabilities who were terminated in the July 2013 RIF." All of this conduct allegedly violated the ADA and was done willfully and with reckless indifference to the Rehire Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA.
Ninth claim: Individual claims for willful violation of the FMLA - retaliatory refusal to hire. Named Plaintiffs Heston, Hatcher, Marks, Jackson, Longan, Koch and Rahbar (the "FMLA Rehire Plaintiffs") allege that they used FMLA leave to which they were entitled within a time proximate to their termination in July 2013; that Spirit decided to terminate them at least in part because of and in retaliation for their use of FMLA leave; that each of them applied for one or more open positions with Spirit after July 25, 2013; and that "Spirit decided not to hire the FMLA Rehire Plaintiffs, at least in part, because of and in retaliation for their prior use, request to use and/or notice to Spirit of their intent to use FMLA leave to which they were entitled prior to July 25, 2013." (Doc. 522 at 90-91.)
Facts relating to exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ADEA and ADA termination claims. From March 26 through May 21, 2014, each of the Named Plaintiffs filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Spirit, alleging age discrimination with respect to their selection for termination in the July 2013 RIF. (Id. at 18-19.) These complaints are referred to by the parties as the "termination charges." The complaints were filed within 300 days of the RIF.
ADEA failure-to-hire claims. At least 20 Named Plaintiffs applied for available positions with Spirit after the RIF. Between July 8, 2014, and February 23, 2015, sixteen of those individuals filed separate EEOC charges of discrimination, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, charging that Spirit engaged in age discrimination by refusing to rehire them. For purposes of satisfying the exhaustion requirements on their ADEA failure-to-hire claims, "four of the twenty Named Plaintiffs who applied for rehire by Spirit (Denny, Ensor, Sprague, and Tolson) rely on the EEOC charges of the other sixteen." (Id. at 20.) Four other Named Plaintiffs (Heston, Sha, Kock, and Poole) did not apply for rehire into specific open positions. According to the amended complaint, the EEOC complaints of these four Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial