Opinion ID: 774022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EEOC complaints and district court proceedings

Text: 12 In April 1994, after Young's alleged younger and cheaper remarks, Rose filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex and age-based harassment. After her demotion a few months later to assistant principal, Rose filed a second complaint with the EEOC alleging retaliation. In December 1995, Rose filed the instant suit in the Eastern District. In her complaint, Rose alleged that the school board had violated the ADEA when it demoted her because of her age. 2 Rose claimed that she was replaced at P.S. 307 by someone younger and less experienced than herself and that her demotion cost her approximately $45,000 in lost salary. Rose sought injunctive relief, back wages and compensation for her physical and emotional suffering. 13 In April 2000, plaintiff's case came to trial before Judge Johnson. Both Rose and Young testified regarding the events discussed above. In her testimony Rose described, among other things, the asbestos incident including Young's younger and cheaper remarks. Rose also offered explanations for the Board's various complaints regarding her performance. When Young took the stand, he denied making any age-related statement and claimed that he was not even aware of Rose's age. 14 At the close of evidence, the district judge held a charge conference at which he presented the parties with proposed jury instructions. Rose's counsel objected to a portion of the charge describing defendant's burden and asked the court to give the jury a Price Waterhouse burden-shifting instruction. In particular, counsel requested that the jury be instructed to shift to defendant the burden of showing that Rose would have been demoted even without Young's discriminatory animus. Defendant Board strongly opposed this request, and the district court reserved decision. 15 Thereafter, both parties presented closing arguments. After the parties completed their summations, the district court informed them that he had accepted defendant's position on the burden issue and would not give the jury a burden-shifting charge. Rose's counsel voiced his objection but the district judge adhered to his ruling. The jury was charged and no further objections were raised. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and answered no on a special verdict form to the following question: Do you find that plaintiff Shirley Rose has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that age was a determinative factor in defendant['s]... demoting her from her position as probationary principal.... 16 This appeal followed.