J. Garvan Murtha, Senior District Judge of the United * States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

1 09-2037-cv Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab.



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



## SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS P E RMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RUL E O FA P P E L LAT E P RO C E D U RE 3 2

. 1

. I NAB R I E FO RO T H E RPA P E RI NWH I C HAL I T I GANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 21 day of December, two thousand nine. st 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 Circuit Judge, 10 J. GARVAN MURTHA, 11 District Judge. * 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X CLIFFORD B. MEACHAM, individually and 14 15 on behalf of all other persons 16 similarly situated, THEDRICK L. 17 EIGHMIE, individually and on behalf 18 of all other persons similarly 19 situated, ALLEN G. SWEET, 20 individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, 21The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to ** amend the official caption to conform to the caption of this order.

2 1 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2 3 4 JAMES R. QUINN, Ph.D., DEBORAH L. 5 BUSH, RAYMOND E. ADAMS, WALLACE 6 ARNOLD, RONALD G. BUTLER SR., WILLIAM 7 F. CHABOT, ALLEN E. CROMER, BELINDA 8 GUNDERSEN, CLIFFORD J. LEVENDUSKY, 9 BRUCE E. PALMATIER, NEIL R. PAREENE, 10 MARGARET REYNHEER, JOHN K. STANNARD, 11 DAVID W. TOWNSEND, CARL T. WOODMAN, 12 13 Consolidated-Plaintiffs14 Appellees, 15 16 HILDRETH E. SIMMONS JR., HENRY 17 BIELAWSKI, JAMES S. CHAMBERS, ARTHUR 18 J. KASZUBSKI, DAVID J. KOPMEYER, 19 CHRISTINE A. PALMER, FRANK A. PAXTON, 20 JANICE M. POLSINELLE, TEOFILS F. 21 TURLAIS, BRUCE E. VEDDER, 22 23 Consolidated-Plaintiffs, 24 25 -v.- 09-2037-cv 26 27 KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, also 28 known as KAPL, Inc., LOCKHEED MARTIN, 29 INC., JOHN J. FREEH, both individually 30 and as an employee of KAPL and 31 Lockheed Martin, 32 33 Defendants-Appellants. ** 34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 35 APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN E. HIGGINS (Margaret A. 36 37 Clemens, on the brief), Nixon 38 Peabody LLP, Rochester, New York. 39 403 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: KEVIN K. RUSSELL (John B. 2 DuCharme and Joseph C. Berger, 3 on the brief), DuCharme, Harp & 4 Clark, LLP, Clifton Park, New 5 York. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 8 Court for the Northern District of New York (Homer, M.J.). 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 12 VACATED and the matter REMANDED for a new trial on the 13 liability issue only. 14 15 Defendants Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Lockheed 16 Martin, and John J. Freeh (“defendants”) appeal the judgment 17 of the district court reinstating a prior jury verdict in 18 plaintiffs’ favor. Defendants argue that the district court 19 committed clear error in holding that they waived the 20 defense based on reasonable factors other than age (“RFOA”), 21 and that the waiver was not properly excused; they also 22 argue that, if we vacate the waiver and excuse holdings, we 23 should order that judgment be granted in their favor as a 24 matter of law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 25 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 26 presented for review. 27 28 Vac atu r o f t he judgme nt is requir ed by adh ere nce toth e 29 “ma nda te rul e,” wh ich“c omp els co mpl ian ce on rem andwi th the 30 dic tat es of thesu per iorco urtan d f ore clo ses re lit iga tio n 31 of iss ues expre ssl y o r imp lie dly de cid ed by the ap pel lat e 32 cou rt. ” Uni tedSt ate s v . B en Zvi , 2 42 F.3 d 8 9, 95 (2dCi r. 33 200 1) (in ter nal qu ota tio n m ark s o mit ted ) ( emp has is in 34 ori gin al) ; s ee als o I n r e S anf ordFo rk & T ool Co ., 160 U. S. 35 247 , 2 55, 25 9 ( 189 5). T o d ete rmi ne whe the r apa rti cul ar 36 iss ue “re mai ns ope n f or rec ons ide rat iononre man d, [a] co urt 37 sho uldlo ok to bot h t he spe cif ic dic tat es of the re man d 38 ord er as wel l a s t he bro ade r s pir it of the ma nda te. ” Ben 39 Zvi , 2 42 F.3 d a t 9 5 ( int ern al quo tat ionma rks om itt ed)

. 40 “[W ]e mus t a lwa ys loo k t o t he opi nio n t o i nte rpr et the 41 man dat e.” F TC v. Sta nda rd Edu c. Soc ’y, 14 8 F .2d93 1, 932 42 (2dCi r. 194 5).

43 In an ear lie r d eci sio n i n t his ca se, th e U nit ed Sta tes 44 Sup reme C our t e xpl ain ed tha t “ the on ly thi ng at sta ke

. . . 45 is the ga p b etw eenpr odu cti on andpe rsu asi on” an d t hatth is4 1 Cou rt “sh owe d n o h esi tat ioninfi ndi ng tha t K nol ls pre vai led 2 on the RF OA def ens e, tho ughth e c our t e xpr ess ed its 3 con clu sio n i n t erm s o f Meac ham ’s fai lur e t o meetth e b urd en 4 of per sua sio n. Wh eth er the ou tco me sho uldbe an y d iff ere nt 5 whe n t he bur denis pr ope rlypl ace d o n t he emp loy er is bes t 6 lef t t o t hatco urtinth e f irs t i nst anc e.” S ee Mea cham v
. 7 Kno lls At omi c P owe r L ab. , 1 28 S. Ct. 23 95, 24 06 (20 08) 8 (“Meac hamSCII ”); se e a lsoMe ach am v. Kno lls At omi c P owe r 9 Lab ., 461 F. 3d 134 , 1 44 (2dCi r. 200 6), va cat ed by Mea cham 10 SC II, 12 8 S . C t. at 240 7. Wa ive r p rin cip les ar e 11 ana lyt ica llyan tec ede nt to an ana lys is on the me rit s; we 12 the ref orere ad theSu pre me Cou rt’ s o pin ionas impli edl y b ut 13 nec ess ari ly rej ect ingpl ain tif fs’ wa ive r a rgumen t. 14 15 Ourco ncl usi on in thi s r ega rd fin ds add iti ona l s upp ort 16 fro m t he fac t t hatpl ain tif fs arg uedfo rfe itu re and 17 aba ndo nme nt in the ir bri ef to the Su pre me Cou rt andwa ive r 18 of the de fen se at ora l a rgumen t b efo re the Su pre me Cou rt. 19 Bri ef forth e P eti tio ner s a t 5 1-5 2, Mea cham S C I I ( No. 06

- 20 150 5); Tr . o f O ral Ar gumentat53 , Meac hamSCII (N o. 06- 21 150 5). T he Cou rt, th ere for e, was squar elypr ese nte d w ith 22 pla int iff s’ wai verar gument , a nd a n atu ral re adi ng of 23 Mea cham S C I I s ugg est s t hatitwa s r eje cte d. 24 25 Oursumma ry ord er iss uedinth is cas e, Mea cham v
. 26 Kno lls At omi c P owe r L ab. , N os. 02 -73 78- cv, 02 -74 74- cv, 20 09 27 WL 336 09 (2dCi r. Jan . 7 , 2 009 ) ( summar y o rde r), re qui res no 28 dif fer entre sul t. Th at ord er doe s n ot con sti tut e afi ndi ng 29 reg ard ingwa ive r, nor , h avi ng re- examin ed the is sue inli ght 30 of the ar gument s p res ent ed in thi s a ppe al, do es it pre clu de 31 us nowfr om det erm ini ng tha t t he man dat e r ule fo rec los es 32 rec ons ide rat ionofth e w aiv er iss ue. 33 34 We the ref ore re man d t his ca se to the di str ictco urt 35 wit h i nst ruc tio ns to hol d ane w t ria l a nd to all ow for 36 wha tev er dis cov eryis ne ces sar y f or the pa rti es fai rlyto 37 lit iga te theis sue s r ega rdi ng lia bil ityun derth e l aw as it 38 cur ren tlyst and s. Th e u nce rta int y a nd mul tip le cha nge s i n 39 the go ver nin g l aw hav e c omp lic ate d t he iss ues inth is cas e 40 to suc h a n e xte nt tha t n eit herpa rtyis en tit ledtoju dgment 41 as a m att er of law , e ith er on the me rit s o r o n p roc edu ral 42 gro und s. 43 44 We hereby VACATE the judgment of the district court and 45 REMAND for a new trial on the liability issue only. 465 1 FOR THE COURT: 2 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 3 By: 4 5 6

___________________________