Source: http://sd.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150421_0000098.DSD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 19:06:41
Document Index: 124035583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 626', '§ 626', '§ 626', '§ 626', '§ 626', '§ 626', '§ 633', '§ 626', '§ 626']

FindACase™ | Ziegler v. Jewell
Ziegler v. Jewell
SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: COURT TRIAL
The parties participated in a court trial on October 28 and 29, 2014. The trial was focused on the limited issue of whether the agency violated the statutory requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act when it bargained for and obtained Ziegler's Age Discrimination in Employment Act waiver in a global settlement of a variety of claims. After all of the evidence was submitted, both parties presented oral arguments to the Court. The Court then gave the parties the opportunity to submit any additional briefing by November 12, 2014. Both parties submitted post-trial briefs which have been considered by the Court. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) the Court issues this Memorandum Opinion.
Ziegler filed his Amended Complaint with this Court on May 16, 2012, Doc. 13. He sued the then Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, former head of law enforcement for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Pat Ragsdale, and BIA human resource expert, Carl Renville, all in their official capacities. Id. The Government filed its Motion to Dismiss on the issues of unpaid overtime and interest and its Answer to Ziegler's remaining claims on July 2, 2012. This Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order re: Motion to Dismiss that dismissed all of Ziegler's claims on September 12, 2013, Doc. 38.
Ziegler appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 1, 2013, Doc. 40. On June 16, 2014, the Eighth Circuit issued its decision affirming the District Court's dismissal of the overtime and interest issues and reversing and remanding the dismissal of Ziegler's claim that his Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) waiver was obtained in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). Ziegler v. Salazar, 560 Fed.Appx. 643, C.A.8 (S.D.), (NO. 13-3409) 560 Fed.Appx. 643, (8th Cir. June 16, 2014).
Plaintiffs history of litigation arising out of his employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency of the Department of the Interior, includes 16 proceedings brought by Plaintiff. Ziegler's claims began when he resigned from a police position with the BIA on March 31, 1999. Ziegler resigned several months before he would have earned an entitlement to a law enforcement retirement. Ziegler then tried to rescind his resignation alleging duress, medical incapacity, and claiming that several higher level BIA law enforcement officials were discriminating against him, along with other older police officers on the basis of age, veteran status, and other protected categories. From 1999 to 2008, Ziegler filed appeals and suits resulting in various proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Office of Federal Operations (EEOC's appellate arm), the Federal Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and several actions before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Ziegler had a hearing before the MSPB on his veteran's preference claims on October 15, 2008, at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The BIA was represented by attorney Sharon Pudwill. Ziegler represented himself. After Ziegler rested his case and before the defense presented evidence, the parties undertook settlement discussions and later that afternoon the parties entered into a settlement agreement identical to what the BIA had offered Ziegler on July 21, 2008. The parties signed a modification of the settlement agreement with Mr. Ziegler signing the modification on October 29, 2008 which removed from the list of cases and claims settled a case that had been dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 14, 2008. The parties were not aware of that dismissal when the Settlement Agreement was entered into on October 15, 2008.
The question before this Court is whether the Settlement Agreement which contained among other things an ADEA waiver was obtained in violation of the applicable provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(F), (G) and (H) are not applicable. Paragraphs (A) through (E) of 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1) must be met, and 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(2) must also be met. In addition, 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(3) is applicable which provides that "the party asserting the validity of a waiver shall have the burden of proving in a court of competent jurisdiction that a waiver was knowing and voluntary pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2)." In this case it is paragraph (2) as this is a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 633(a). Paragraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph 1 have to have been met and the defense also has the burden of proving that Victor Ziegler was "given a reasonable period of time within which to consider the settlement agreement."
29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1)(F)(i) requires that "the individual is given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement;" but that provision is not applicable in this case. However, the Settlement Agreement contains a 21 day consideration period and then waives the period. Likewise, the Settlement Agreement provides that for a period of at least 7 days following the execution of the agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement. That provision is not required by law but was nonetheless in the Settlement Agreement. Victor Ziegler did not elect to revoke the Settlement Agreement.
For the first part of the analysis, was Victor Ziegler's waiver of ADEA rights knowing? Mr. Ziegler graduated from law school in 2004 and subsequently received a Master's of Law and recently became a member of the District of Columbia Bar. The record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Ziegler's waiver of ADEA rights was knowing. The ultimate Settlement Agreement was identical to the second proposed Settlement Agreement that Mr. Ziegler had rejected on July 30, 2008.
A first draft of the Settlement Agreement was sent to Mr. Ziegler on June 30, 2008, a second draft on July 21, 2008. (Exlnbits 110 and 114).
Mr. Ziegler's detailed written responses demonstrated that he clearly read and understood the proposed Settlement Agreements and the issues involved (Exlnbits 111, 113, and 115).
Each of the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1) have been met. The Settlement Agreement was written in such a manner that Mr. Ziegler could understand the Settlement Agreement. The waiver did specifically refer to waving claims arising under the ADEA. The Settlement Agreement did not waive rights or claims that may arise after the date the waiver contained in the Settlement Agreement was executed (paragraph 16, Exhibit 101). Consideration was clearly provided to Mr. Ziegler in the Settlement Agreement. Consideration consisted of waiver of the remaining unpaid costs of $1, 330.90 in the October 15, 2008 Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice of Ziegler v. Kempthorne, et al., Civ. 04-4098 before this Court and separately the approximately $200, 000 in benefits paid to Mr. Ziegler even though he would not have otherwise qualified for those benefits without winning his claims which had never been adjudicated. ...