Opinion ID: 790574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Woodman's EEOC Claim of Employment Discrimination

Text: 9 In a complaint dated January 8, 2002, and filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 14, 2002, Woodman charged defendants with discriminatory termination based on age in violation of the ADEA. She asserted that her claim was not barred by the waiver provisions of her termination release because that document failed to comply with the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). 10 Upon reviewing Woodman's complaint and subsequent submissions from the parties, the EEOC determined that Woodman's age discrimination claim was not supported by sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. It explained: Examination of the evidence indicates that Charging Party's [Woodman's] position was consolidated with another position. The retained employee, although younger, had greater experience and knowledge with Fox Television's procedures and practices and had been performing successfully. A review of workforce before and after the merger and reorganization revealed a total difference of .7% age differential. Respondents[ ] further identified other affected positions where the older employees were retained over the younger employees. Therefore, there was no evidence to support that if not for the Charging Party's age she would not have been selected for termination. Given these facts, it is unlikely that EEOC would find that Respondent terminated Charging Party in violation of the ADEA if it invested additional resources. 11 EEOC Determination, Aug. 22, 2002. 5 Accordingly, it issued Woodman a right-to-sue notice on this claim. 12 At the same time, however, the EEOC agreed with Woodman that the releases signed by her and certain other terminated Chris-Craft employees violated the OWBPA and related EEOC regulations in that the releases (1) failed to refer to employee rights and claims arising under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(B); (2) failed to afford terminated employees forty-five days within which to consider signing the waiver document, see id. § 626(f)(1)(F)(ii); (3) failed to identify by job title and age all terminated employees as well as all persons in the same job classification or operational unit who were being retained, see id. § 626(f)(1)(H)(ii); (4) failed to provide a seven-day revocation period after signing a release, see id. § 626(f)(1)(G); and (5) precluded terminated employees from asserting rights or claims that might arise after execution of the releases, see id. § 626(f)(1)(C). To address these violations, the EEOC commenced a conciliation process to ensure defendants' future compliance with OWBPA and EEOC regulations in its release agreements.