U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Balt. Cnty.
| Citation | 202 F.Supp.3d 499 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-07-2500 |
| Parties | U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Debra Michele Lawrence, Maria Salacuse, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore, MD, Christopher W. Lage, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Jacqueline H. McNair, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
James J. Nolan, Jr., Baltimore County Office of Law, Paul McLane Mayhew, Baltimore County Law Department, Dilip B. Paliath, Preller and Preller, Towson, MD, David Gray Wright, Joel A. Smith, Keith J. Zimmerman, Kahn Smith and Collins PA, Baltimore, MD, Jennifer L. Hunter, Matthew H. Clash Drexler, Bredhoff and Kaiser PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
In April of 1999 and January of 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued Notices of Charge of Discrimination to Baltimore County on behalf of two Baltimore County correctional officers who alleged that Baltimore County's employee pension plan, and employee plan contribution rates, discriminated against them based on their ages. See EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., et al. , 747 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir.2014), cert. denied sub nom. Baltimore Cty. v. EEOC , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 436, 190 L.Ed.2d 328 (2014). The County timely denied these charges and provided the EEOC with all requested information, including its actuary's cost justification for the employee contribution rates. With no further inquiry from the EEOC, five and one half years passed until March of 2006 when the EEOC issued a notice that the County's pension plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). Another year and one half passed before the EEOC brought this action against Baltimore County ("Defendant" or the "County") in September of 2007, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), as amended , 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 57. Specifically, the EEOC has alleged that "[since] at least January 1, 1996, [the] County has engaged in unlawful employment practices by requiring Wayne A. Lee, Richard J. Bosse, and a class of similarly situated [County employees at least forty years of age] to pay higher contributions than those paid by younger individuals to Defendant's pension plan," in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1) & (i)(1). Id. at ¶ 14.1 Via Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 17, 2012, Judge Benson E. Legg2 of this Court "grant[ed] partial summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on the issue of liability."3 EEOC v. Baltimore Cty. , No. L–07–2500, 2012 WL 5077631, at *1 (D.Md. Oct. 17, 2012). Judge Legg's ruling was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remanded "for further proceedings to address the issue of damages." EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., et al. , 747 F.3d 267, 274–75 (4th Cir.2014).
There is no dispute in this case that the Union Defendants have bargained for the County's pension plan contribution rates from the 1970s through the present and in fact "acquiesce[d]" to "or even support[ed]" those rates. Mem. Supp. EEOC Mot., p. 16, ECF No. 241-1. Additionally, as discussed infra , the parties and all six Union Defendants have approved a plan for the gradual equalization of contribution rates under the County's pension plan. The terms of that plan have since been incorporated into a Joint Consent Order Regarding Injunctive Relief, signed by this Court on April 26, 2016 (ECF No. 238).4 However, the EEOC contends that both retroactive and prospective monetary damages are mandatory in this case and are still necessary to compensate older County employees for the excess contributions they have previously made to the County's discriminatory pension plan and will continue to make over the next two years as the pension plan's contribution rates are gradually equalized. The County argues that neither retroactive nor prospective monetary relief is mandatory and that neither form of relief is warranted in this case.
Currently pending before this Court is the EEOC's Motion for Determination on Availability of Retroactive and Prospective Monetary Relief (ECF No. 241). The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and a hearing on the pending Motion was held before this Court on July 29, 2016. At that hearing, counsel for the EEOC acknowledged to this Court that the EEOC's delay of eight years in filing this action "trouble[d]" him. Hearing Tr., at M-72. This Court finds that the EEOC's eight-year delay in prosecuting this case and its present position on the issue of damages are more than "troubl[ing]" and are in fact untenable. Counsel for the County have represented that the County's retroactive liability alone could total $19 million. County Response, p. 24, ECF No. 243. The EEOC has conceded "that the amount of an award of monetary relief in this case could be substantial, that ‘[r]etroactive liability could be devastating for pension funds,’ and that the ‘harm would fall on innocent third parties,’ including county tax payers, as well as current and retired employees." Mem. Supp. EEOC Mot., p. 20, ECF No. 241-1 (quoting City of Los Angeles, Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart , 435 U.S. 702, 722–23, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) ). For the reasons stated herein, the EEOC's Motion for Determination on Availability of Retroactive and Prospective Monetary Relief (ECF No. 241) is DENIED. Neither retroactive nor prospective monetary relief is mandatory under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and, under the circumstances of this case, neither form of relief is appropriate. Even if retroactive monetary relief were mandatory, a closer question than prospective relief, this Court would still decline to award retroactive relief in this case due to the EEOC's unreasonable delay in pursuing its claims. Accordingly, neither retroactive nor prospective monetary relief is available in this case.5 As a result of the Joint Consent Order (ECF No. 238), there are no further issues in this case. After over seventeen years, this matter is now concluded.
The facts of this case are set forth fully in EEOC v. Baltimore Cty. , 747 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir.2014) ; EEOC v. Baltimore Cty. , No. L–07–2500, 2012 WL 5077631, at *1 (D.Md. Oct. 17, 2012) ; and EEOC v. Baltimore Cty. , 593 F.Supp.2d 797, 799 (D.Md.2009).
In 1945, Defendant Baltimore County ("Defendant" or the "County") established a mandatory Employee Retirement System (the "pension plan" or "ERS") for all "general" County employees, under which employees were eligible to retire and receive pension benefits at age 65, regardless of their length of employment. EEOC v. Baltimore Cty. , 747 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir.2014). The County planned to fund half of the ERS on its own and relied on employee contributions to fund the other half. Id. The County required employees to contribute to the ERS over the course of their employment at contribution rates calculated by the County's actuarial firm, Buck Consultants. Id.
To ensure that employee contributions were sufficient to fund the Plan, Buck Consultants "based its calculations for employee contribution rates on the number of years that an employee would contribute to the plan before being eligible to retire at age 65." Id. "Using the retirement age of 65, Buck ultimately concluded that older employees who enrolled in the plan should contribute a higher percentage of their salaries, because their contributions would earn interest for fewer years than the younger employees' contributions." Id. The County adopted the Buck Consultants calculations and, accordingly, "the older that an employee was at the time of enrollment [in the ERS], the higher the rate that the employee was required to contribute." Id.
The County modified the terms of the ERS several times. Most notably, in 1973 "[t]he County...added an alternative term of retirement eligibility that permitted general employees to retire after 30 years of service irrespective of their age."6 Id. The County lowered the employee contribution rates once in 1977 "based on expected increases to the rate of return on invested contributions." Id. at 271. However, "[t]his reduction did not alter the fact that rates were based on an employee's age at the time of plan enrollment and were higher for older employees." Id.
"In 1999 and 2000, two County correctional officers, Wayne A. Lee and Richard J. Bosse, Sr., aged 51 and 64, respectively, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that the County's plan and disparate contribution rates discriminated against them based on their ages." Id. The County has indicated that it "denied the charges and supplied EEOC with all the information it requested, including the cost justification from its actuary for the employee contribution rates." County Response, p. 5, ECF No. 243 (citing Joint Appendix 321-403). However, "[a]fter an unexplained hiatus of 5 and ½ years, on March 6, 2006, the EEOC issued Determination Letters finding that the County's retirement system violated the ADEA." Id. (citing Joint Appendix 72-75).
The parties were unsuccessful in reaching a conciliation agreement, and the EEOC filed the present action in 2007—eight years after the first charge of discrimination was filed.7 See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 57. The EEOC has alleged that "[since] at least January 1, 1996, [the] County has engaged in unlawful employment practices by requiring Wayne A. Lee, Richard J. Bosse, and a class of similarly situated [County employees at least forty years of age] to pay higher contributions than those paid by younger individuals to Defendant's pension plan," in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1) & (i)(1). Id. at ¶ 14.
On January 21, 2009, Judge Benson E. Legg8 of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Balt. Cnty.
...of this case have been recited numerous times. See EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., 747 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2014); EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., 202 F. Supp. 3d 499, 502-05 (D. Md. 2016); EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., No. L-07-2500, 2012 WL 5077631, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2012); EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., 593 ......