Law Reporter | Products Liability Law Reporter | Professional Negligence Law Reporter
Publish your case | Other publications

Court Documents by Topic

Age Discrimination

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Documents $50

• Griffin v. Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 19 (Feb. 1996) (the plaintiffs’ appellate brief in a case holding a waiver of ADEA rights signed in exchange for severance benefits is not knowing and voluntary where an employer closing a plant fails to provide age-protected employees with the ages of similar employees at ongoing plants). No. LR2597.
• Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 43 ATLA L. Rep. 217 (Aug. 2000) (AAJ’s amicus curiae brief in a case holding that a jury may infer unlawful discrimination from an employee’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence that an employer’s proffered reasons for an adverse employment action are false). No. LR3592.

Document Sets $95

• Anderson v. Denver Country Club, 38 ATLA L. Rep. 98 (Apr. 1994) (the plaintiffs’ complaint and the court’s judgment in a case alleging a country club manager retaliated against employees who opposed discrimination). No. LR2347.

• Denesha v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 397 (Dec. 1996) (the plaintiff’s posttrial briefs in a case alleging age discrimination by an insurance company against an agent). No. LR2891.

• Downes v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 37 ATLA L. Rep. 341 (Nov. 1994) (the plaintiff’s complaint; the parties’ summary judgment motions; plaintiff’s brief opposing defendant’s summary judgment motion; and the court’s opinion in a case alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). No. EX1857.

• Hageman v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 37 ATLA L. Rep. 341 (Nov. 1994) (the plaintiffs’ complaints; defendant’s proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment; the parties’ briefs on that motion; the parties’ posttrial memoranda; and the court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order in a case alleging an archdiocese’s support staff restructuring resulted in age discrimination and constructive discharge). No. LR2208.

• Hyman v. First Union Corp., 41 ATLA L. Rep. 132 (May 1998) (the court’s memorandum opinion and plaintiff’s complaint, motion for leave to file the complaint, and memorandum of points and authorities in a case alleging age and race discrimination). No. LR3200.

• Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Elec. Corp., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 20 (Feb. 1996) (the parties’ appellate briefs in a case holding an employee who chose an early retirement package over termination could maintain a constructive discharge action under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act). No. LR2567.

• Lentz v. KTLA, Inc., 38 ATLA L. Rep. 308 (Oct. 1995) (the plaintiff’s complaint and trial brief in a case alleging age discrimination by a televison station in replacing a news reporter). No. LR2506.

• McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publg. Corp., 38 ATLA L. Rep. 243 (Aug. 1995) (the parties’ appellate and reply briefs and several amicus curiae briefs in a case holding after-acquired evidence of an employee’s wrongdoing does not bar an ADEA claim but may affect the remedy). No. LR2324.

• O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 196 (June 1996) (the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in a case holding an ADEA plaintiff need not show his or her replacement was outside the age group protected by the act). No. LR2739.

• Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 38 ATLA L. Rep. 262 (Sept. 1995) (the plaintiff’s appellate briefs and the trial court’s entry of judgment after remand in a case holding that an ADEA plaintiff may receive both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest because the remedies serve different purposes). No. LR2494.

• Sutera v. Schering Corp., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 116 (Apr. 1996) (the parties’ appellate briefs in a case holding that a court must allow a plaintiff to discover information relevant to its showing that defendant’s proffered reason for the employment action was pretextual before granting defendant’s summary judgment motion). No. LR2681.

• Vinson v. Eq. Res. Mgt., 40 ATLA L. Rep. 252 (Sept. 1997) (the plaintiff’s complaint, proposed voir dire, and brief opposing summary judgment, and the court’s order denying summary judgment, in a case alleging that an apartment building owner fired its manager in violation of the ADEA). No. LR3066.

• Wells v. Columbia Gas of Ky., Inc. 44 ATLA L. Rep. 263 (Sept. 2001) (the plaintiff’s amended complaint, memorandum in support of motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses, and memoranda opposing defendants’ motions for summary judgment, new trial, and judgment n.o.v. in a case alleging race discrimination where an older worker was fired after a customer accused him of sexual harassment). No. LR3781.