No. 11-10697 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIFTH CIRCUIT LARRY RANDALL POWELL; LAWRENCE WILLIAM DEORE; PAULA F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 11-10697 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LARRY RANDALL POWELL; LAWRENCE WILLIAM DEORE; PAULA F. WATSON; GARY VAN WEST; RAUL PREZAS REYES; TIMOTHY ARTHUR O'LEARY; JAN MICHAEL HUBBARD; MICHAEL S. COONS; JOHN PAUL CHAMLESS; IRA HADNOT ALEXANDER; DEBORAH SUE VOORHEES; LINSTON ROBERT LOFLEY; KAREN PATTERSON; LINDA JONES; GARY STRATTON; EWINA H. SCHUMACHER; PAULETTE LADACH; STEPHEN WAYNE YOUNT, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, LP; BELO CORPORATION; BELO BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, as plan administrator for the G.B. Dealey Retirement Pension Plan and the Belo Savings Plan, Defendants-Appellees ________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ________________________ BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AARP IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, SUPPORTING REVERSAL ________________________ Mary Ellen Signorille Melvin Radowitz AARP Foundation Litigation AARP 601 E Street, NW 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Washington, DC 20049 (202) 434-2060 ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE AARP CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (1) Larry Powell et al v. The Dallas Morning News, LP et al, No. 11-10697 (2) The undersigned counsel of record certify that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest on the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal. Appellants: Larry Randall Powell Lawrence William DeOre Paula F. Watson Gary Van West Raul Prezas Reyes Timothy Arthur O’Leary Jan Michael Hubbard Michael S. Coons John Paul Chamless Ira Hadnot Alexander Deborah Sue Voorhees Linston Robert Lofley Karen Patterson Linda Jones Gary Stratton Ewina H. Schumacher Paulette Ladach Stephen Wayne Yount Appellees: The Dallas Morning News L.P. Belo Corp. Belo Benefits Administrative Committee G.B. Dealey Retirement Pension Plan – not a party on appeal Belo Savings Plan – not a party on appeal Robert W. Decherd (Chairman of the Board – Belo Corp.) – not a party on appeal James M. Moroney III (Publisher – The Dallas Morning News, L.P.) – not a party on appeal Affiliates of Belo Corp.: WFAA-TV KING-TV KHOU-TV KGW-TV KENS-TV KREM-TV KBEJ-TV KSKN-TV KVUE-TV KTVB-TV i KTVK-TV KMOV-TV KASW-TV WCNC-TV KMSB-TV WVEC-TV KTTU-TV WWL-TV WHAS-TV The Dallas Morning News Texas Almanac Denton Record-Chronicle The Providence Journal Al Dia Rhode Island Weekly Quick The Press-Enterprise The Business Press La Prensa This Week in the Desert Belo Interactive Texas Cable News (TXCN) Northwest Cable News (NWCN) Amicus Curiae: AARP Attorneys for Appellants: Karen G. Shropshire Howard C. Rubin Gary S. Kessler Attorneys for Appellees: Robert E. Sheeder Christopher Lee Maberry J. Brett Busby Attorneys for Amicus Curiae: Mary Ellen Signorille AARP Foundation Mel Radowitz AARP /s/ Mary Ellen Signorille Mary Ellen Signorille ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS .........................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 I. THE PRACTICE OF GIVING SUPERVISORS UNCHECKED DISCRETION TO ENGAGE IN SUBJECTIVE DECISION- MAKING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A DISPARATE IMPACT CHALLENGE UNDER THE ADEA. .................................. 4 II. THE SUBJECTIVE FACTORS USED BY DEFENDANTS’ SUPERVISORS TO SELECT EMPLOYEES FOR TERMINATION ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE INFLUENCE OF WELL-KNOWN AGE-RELATED STEREOTYPES .................................................................................... 6 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY PLACING THE BURDEN ON PLAINTIFFS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FACTORS USED BY DEFENDANTS TO SELECT EMPLOYEE FOR TERMINATION WERE UNREASONABLE .... 11 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 16 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) ....................................................................................... 15 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) ......................................................................................... 7 Carroll v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 708 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1983). .......................................................................... 8 EEOC v. Francis W. Parker Sch., 41 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................... 7, 9 EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983) ....................................................................................... 13 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). ...................................................................................... 15 Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) .................................................................................6 , 7, 8 Jenkins v. Caddo-Bassier Assoc. for Retarded Citizens, 570 F.3d 1227 (5th Cir. 1978) ......................................................................... 5 McClain v. Lufkin Indus.,Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42545 (Jan. 13, 2005 E.D. Tex), aff’d in relevant part, 519 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008). ...................................... 5 McClain v. Lufkin Indus.,Inc., 187 F.R.D. 267 (E.D. Tex. 1999) ........................................................... 5, 6, 8 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) .................................................................................14, 15 Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 84 (2008) ...........................................................................2, 3, 11, 14 iv Orzel v. Wauwatosa Fire Dep’t, 697 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1983). ........................................................................ 11 Powell v. The Dallas Morning News, 776 F. Supp. 2d 240 (N.D. Tex. 2011). ......................................................... 11 Rowe v. Cleveland Pneumatic Co., Numerical Control, Inc., 690 F.2d 88 (6th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................. 5 Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) .........................................................................1, 4, 11, 12 Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................... 8 Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) ................................................................................... 4, 12 Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) ................................................................ 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14 Statutes & Legislative History Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) 29 U.S.C., § 621(a)(2) ................................................................................... 10 Age Discrimination in Employment: Hearings on S. 830 and S. 788 Before th the Subcomm. On Labor and Public Welfare, 90 Cong. (1967) ................. 10 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, The Older Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment, Report of the Secretary of Labor Under Section 715 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1965). ........................................................................................ 13 Other Authorities Marc Bendick, Jr., Charles W. Jackson & J. Horacio Romero, “Employment Discrimination Against Older Workers: An Experimental Study of Hiring Practices,” 8(4) JOURNAL OF AGING & SOCIAL POLICY 25 (1996) ........................................................................................................... 6, 7 v Howard Eglit, “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s Forgotten Affirmative Defense,” 66 BOSTON LAW REV. 155 (1986). ............................. 9 Lisa M. Finkelstein, Michael J. Burke & Nambury S. Raju, “Age Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts,” 80 JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 652 (1995) .............................................................. 6 Becca R. Levy, “Eradication of Ageism Requires Addressing the Enemy Within,” 41 THE GERONTOLOGIST 578 (Oct. 2001)......................................... 9 Veronica F. Nieva & Barbara A. Gutek, “Sex Effects on Evaluation,” 5 ACAD. OF MGMT REV. 267 (1980) ................................................................... 8 Erdman B. Palmore, AGEISM: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE (2d ed. 1999). ................. 10 Charles W. Perdue & Michael B. Gurtman, “Evidence for the Automaticity of Ageism,” 26 JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 199 (1990). ..................................................................................................... 10 vi INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 AARP is a nonpartisan, nonprofit membership organization of people age 50 and over that is dedicated to assuring that older Americans have independence, choice and control in ways beneficial and affordable to them and to society as a whole. One of AARP’s primary objectives is to achieve dignity and equity in the workplace. AARP seeks to eliminate stereotypes about older workers,