Opinion ID: 1407821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claims under adea

Text: Appellant Peterson failed to establish a prima facie case on her ADEA claim. It is elementary that in order to present a prima facie case of age discrimination under ADEA, plaintiff must show that the Board's policy offered a benefit to some employees, but withheld the same benefit from older employees based on age. Tusting v. Bay View Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 789 F.Supp. 1034, 1037 (N.D.Cal.1992). Appellant Peterson ignores this requirement, instead arguing that the Board's decision to exercise its discretion was a prima facie violation of ADEA. In sole support of this contention, appellant Peterson relies on federal regulation 29 C.F.R. 1625.10(c) (July 1, 1995), which states in part: Where a discriminatory provision is an optional term of the plan, it permits individual, discretionary acts of discrimination, which do not fall within    [ADEA's] [§ 623](4)(f)(2) exception. Contrary to appellant Peterson's interpretation, nothing in this regulation or in the language of ADEA precludes an employer from exercising non-discriminatory discretion in the application of early retirement benefits. Neither does the regulation allow appellant Peterson to claim under ADEA without showing the existence of a discriminatory act. The Board's March 1992 decision to delay its approval of early retirement requests was equally applied to all requests which were submitted at that time. Thus, there can be no claim that the delay was based on age discrimination. See Tusting, 789 F.Supp. at 1037 (if a plan change had ordered an immediate across the board elimination of benefits, irrespective of age or seniority, plaintiffs could not argue the change violated ADEA). Likewise, appellant Peterson cannot claim age discrimination when the Board determined, under the Revised Plan, to award the benefits to the oldest applicants with the greatest number of years in service. The ADEA has never been construed to permit younger persons to claim discrimination against them in favor of older persons. Parker v. Wakelin, 882 F.Supp. 1131, 1140 (D.Me.1995). Therefore, summary judgment in favor of appellees on this claim is appropriate.