In 1990 Congress enacted the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) out of concern that employees terminated as part of a Reduction in Force (RIF) did not fully understand the rights they were giving up in exchange for the payment of severance benefits. Under OWBPA, a severance agreement entered into with a terminated employee over age 40 is not valid unless the agreement contains certain provisions. Among other things, the release is supposed to be written in easy to understand language rather than legal jargon; it must advise the employee to seek advice from an attorney; it must allows the employee adequate time to consider whether to sign the release (21 to 45 days, depending upon how many employees are part of the RIF); and, in the event the employee changes his mind after signing, the employee has seven days to revoke the agreement. If the release does not comply in every respect, it is not valid, and an employee who signed and accepted the severance payments may still sue for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination is Employment Act (ADEA). An employee who sues may not even have to return the money received as part of the severance agreement.
Continue Reading
Trouble Begets Trouble
“University of Iowa College of Law” “age discrimination” lawsuit retaliation professor
Continue Reading
Recent 8th Circuit Case Likely to Encourage Continued Migration of Age Discrimination Claims to State Court
We have discussed in this blog before the migration of discrimination claims to Iowa state courts rather than federal courts. The trend is driven by a number of factors, including the recognition in 2005 of the right to a jury trial under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the greater propensity of federal courts
Whatever Happened to…Jack Gross?
Remember Jack Gross? Back in 2003 he claimed a demotion from his management job at West Des Moines based FBL Financial Services constituted age discrimination. A federal jury in the Southern District of Iowa agreed and awarded him $47,000 in damages. From there his case had a remarkable journey: first stopping in St. Louis at the Eighth Circuit
Eighth Circuit Once Again Reviews Age Discrimination Burden of Proof–This Time Under ICRA
Age discrimination cases tried in the Southern District of Iowa continue to generate controversy over how juries should be instructed about the plaintiff’s burden of proof. First it was Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., tried in the Southern District and ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2009. Then it was
Gross v. FBL Remand: Eighth Circuit Considers Additional Issues
On November 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion on the remand of Gross v. FBL Financial Group, Inc. We have discussed the Gross case in several previous posts (here, here, and here). The case has particular local interest because it was tried in
An Interesting Interview with Jack Gross
Des Moines Register columnist Marc Hansen writes about an interview he had with Jack Gross, the plaintiff in Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc., decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last June. Mr. Gross was in Washinton, DC last week to testify before the Senate Judiciary committee that is considering amendments to the ADEA that would effectively overrule the
Weekly Web Roundup: October 2, 2009
More signs this week that the federal government is ramping up enforcement of employment laws. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is seeking a $22 million budget increase for 2010, and is seeking to hire 50 new attorneys. Law Memo Employment Law Blog reports that the 
EEOC has been very active recently in filing lawsuits. The Agency filed 32
Iowa Case Changes the Age Discrimination Landscape–At Least for Now
On June 18 the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, an age discrimination case arising out of Iowa. We first reported on the Gross case when the Court heard arguments a couple of months ago. Since the decision was issued, many commentators have opined
Layoffs and Age Bias
Conventional wisdom in the world of layoffs and reductions in force has held that older workers are more at risk for layoff because they generally earn higher salaries than their younger colleagues. However, in this downturn, employers’ concern about the high cost of age bias claims may have put the jobs of younger workers more at