Document: 522 U.S. 422118 S.Ct. 838139 L.Ed.2d 849 Dolores M. OUBRE, Petitioner,v.ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. No. 96-1291. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 12, 1997. Decided Jan. 26, 1998. Syllabus * In consideration for receipt severance pay under an employment termination agreement, petitioner Oubre signed a release all claims against her employer, respondent Entergy Operations, Inc. procuring release, failed to comply in at least three respects with requirements Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), as set forth Older Workers Benefit Protection (OWBPA): It did not (1) give enough time consider options, (2) seven days change mind, or (3) make specific reference ADEA claims. After receiving last payment, sued Entergy, alleging constructive discharge on basis age violation and state law. moved summary judgment, claiming had ratified defective by failing return offer monies she received. The District agreed entered judgment Entergy. Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held: As OWBPA's requirements, it cannot bar Oubre's claim. OWBPA provides: "An individual may waive any [ADEA] claim . unless waiver is knowing voluntary [A] be considered minimum'' satisfies certain enumerated including listed above. 29 U.S.C. §626(f)(1). Thus, implements Congress' policy protecting older workers' rights benefits via strict, unqualified statutory stricture waivers, this bound take Congress its word. By imposing duties employers seeking releases delineating these precision without exception qualification, statute makes command clear: An employee "may waive'' requirements. does do so. Nor mere retention amount ratification equivalent valid claims, since more than original did. Accordingly, even if has correctly stated contract equitable estoppel principles which relies, argument unavailing because authorities cites commands. Moreover, Entergy's proposed rule would frustrate statute's practical operation well formal command. A discharged often will have spent received lack means tender their return. These realities might tempt risk noncompliance provisions, that difficult repay relying ratification. This ought open door evasion device. Pp. ___-___. 112 F.3d 787 (C.A.5 1996), reversed remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, SCALIA, dissenting opinion. THOMAS, REHNQUIST, C.J., Barbara G. Haynie, Metairie, LA, Petitioner. Beth S. Brinkmann, Washington, DC, amicus curiae. Carter Phillips, respondent. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 employee, part employer. consideration, installments. however, federal 1967 81 Stat. 602, §621 et seq. brought suit ADEA. employer validated nonconforming retaining paid secure it. also insists bars action unless, precondition filing suit, tenders back We disagree that, statute, 2 Petitioner worked scheduler power plant Killona, Louisiana, run 1994, poor performance rating. supervisor met January 17, 1995, gave option either improving during coming year accepting arrangement severance. She packet information about agreement 14 consulted attorneys. On 31, decided accept. "agree[d] waive, settle, demands, damages, actions, causes I .'' App. 61. exchange, six installment payments over next four months, totaling $6,258. 3 (OWBPA) imposes covering OWBPA, §201, 104 983, §§626(f)(1)(B), (F), (G). respects: options. after mind. And made no 4 charge discrimination Equal Opportunity Commission, dismissed merits but issued right-to-sue letter. Eastern offered tried $6,258 nor clear Appeals affirmed, 1996) (per curiam), we granted certiorari, 520 ----, 117 1466, 137 680 (1997). II 5 rests case upon general jurisprudence. recites rule, contracts tainted mistake, duress, fraud are voidable innocent party. See Restatement (Second) Contracts §7, Comment b (1979); e.g., Ellerin v. Fairfax Sav. Assn., 78 Md.App. 92, 108-109, 552 A.2d 918, 926-927 (Md.Spec.App.), cert. denied, 316 Md. 210, 557 1336 (1989). maintains, before party can elect avoidance, must first contract. See, Dreiling Home State Life Ins. Co., 213 Kan. 137, 147-148, 515 P.2d 757, 766-767 (1973). If fails so within reasonable learning rights, contends, ratifies binding. Contracts, supra, Comments d, e; see, Jobe Texas Util. Elec. 05-94-01368-CV, 1995 WL 479645, *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas, Aug.14, 1995) (unpublished). invokes doctrine estoppel. from shirking burdens transaction long retains Buffum Peter Barceloux 289 227, 234, 53 539, 542, 77 L.Ed. 1140 (1933) (citing law Indiana New York). Applying principles, ineffective (or faces estoppel) sums then, relies execution later, distinct terms. 6 rules unified asserts. generally Annot., 76 A.L.R. 344 (1932) (collecting cases supporting contradicting rules); 134 (1941) (same). equity, person suing rescind contract, required restore very outset litigation. §384, b; Restitution §65, d (1936); D. Dobbs, Law Remedies §4.8, p. 294 Even employer's statement requiring one files were correct, unavailing. cited based simply course negotiation parties alleged later question raised standards declaration making non-conforming ineffective. latter confront here. 7 1990, amended passing OWBPA. right [the ADEA] 8 likewise title: designed protect workers. imposed who seek created statute. delineated qualification: complies Courts ease presume forbids. 9 sets up own regime assessing effect separate apart creates series prerequisites waivers affirmative disclosure waiting periods. governs incorporates exceptions qualifications. text forecloses defense, notwithstanding how apply non-ADEA 10 many instances likely 11 cause arises ADEA, case, both sides concede Since stringent safeguards, unenforceable insofar purports matter, irrespective validity other 12 further proceedings cases, courts need inquire whether restitution, recoupment, setoff questions complex where effective some decide those issues here, however. suffices hold conform employee's invoke failure way excusing comply. 13 reverse remand consistent ordered.SAPPSAPPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 15 Act, §626(f): 16 (f) Waiver 17 chapter voluntary. Except provided paragraph (2), minimum- 18 (A) between written manner calculated understood such individual, average eligible participate; 19 (B) specifically refers arising Act; 20 (C) arise date executed; 21 (D) waives only exchange addition anything value already entitled; 22 (E) advised writing consult attorney prior executing agreement; 23 (F)(i) given period 24 (ii) requested connection exit incentive program group class employees, 45 25 (G) provides following revoke shall become enforceable until revocation expired; 26 (H) (at commencement specified subparagraph (F)) informs participate, to- 27 (i) class, unit, individuals covered program, eligibility factors limits applicable program; 28 job titles ages selected same classification organizational unit program. settlement court individual's representative, kind prohibited section 30 subparagraphs through been met; 31 agreement. 32 dispute conditions, circumstances (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (G), (1), met, asserting burden proving competent jurisdiction was pursuant (2). 33 (4) No affect Commission's responsibilities enforce Act. used justify interfering protected file participate investigation proceeding conducted Commission.EAPPS 34 whom O'CONNOR joins, concurring. 35 focuses worker payment promised bring age-discrimination suit. Her promise procedural tests agree majority failing, free "tendering-back'' precondition. conceptual "tender-back'' requirement imply keeping payment. For reason, (without assets) money he promise. Yet act could embody failings led find sue itself invalid. reasons, points out, tender-back contrary ante, __-__. Cf. §85, (1979) (a ratifying reason promise, reason''); 982 (1973) (hereinafter Dobbs) (" [C]ourts avoid allowing recovery substantially enforcing declared unenforceable, defeat place''). 36 write additional words believe important specify not, thereby worker's procedurally invalid totally void, i.e., legal effect, say, like terms themselves public policy. a; id., §178. Rather, create voidable, infant, fraud, mistake ratify. §7 b. 37 To determine typically ask conditions giving choice validity, infant; enforcement violate formed, commit murder. Compare (voidable) §178 (void). us reflects concern (of knowledge choice) surrounding reflect relevant contract's substantive unlike Federal Employers' Liability 65, amended, §51 seq., say waiving avoiding liability void. §55. majority's clear, see __-__, prohibits finding circumstances, presented namely, release. That fact ratification, rather voidable. 38 void prove important. example, absolutely said, "is everybody whose affected valid.'' 17A Am.Jur.2d, (1991). Were former legally possible cancel reciprocal obligation, worker, provide ongoing health benefits-whether ever intended lawsuit? seems most unlikely Congress, enacting meant workers, wanted create-as result follow law-any threat they intend protection threats. 39 At time, treating permit recover his promise) doing fair, bringing Once (who sue) brings clearly rejected (avoided) sue. there precondition, (invalid) barred conflict sued, nothing prevents asking restitution relief obligation. §47, (1936) ("A transfers something another believing comes duty perform ordinarily entitled what obligation perform''); 994 (restitution allowed conferred contract). number indicate, deducted successful plaintiff's damages award. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. Cox, 171 Ark. 103, 113-115, 283 S.W. (1926) (amount taken into setting remedy); Koshka Missouri Pac. 114 126, 129-130, 217 P. 293, 295 (1923) (the sum treated item credit damages); Miller Spokane Int'l 82 Wash. 170, 177-178, 143 981, 984 (1914) (same); Gilmore Western 42 N.D. 206, 211-212, 172 N.W. 111, 113 (1919). 40 My point provisions viewing Apparently, five Justices view matter. post, __ n. 1. understand view, consequently concur 41 dissenting. THOMAS (OWBPA), §626(f), abrogate common-law doctrines "tender back'' Because affirm judgment. 43 second affirmance, occur impediment conclusion eliminated. infant ratify reaches majority, contracted duress removed. E. Farnsworth, Farnsworth §4.4, 381, §4.19, 443 (1990). Of contractual impediments, discovery cure. W. Jaeger, Williston §1527, 626 (3d ed.1970) (ratification defrauded "after fraud''); §9.3, "that aware facts''). here sort. " [a]n th[e] voluntary,'' §626(f)(1), says voluntary'' complied ibid. learns enables contracting render ab initio. 44 Chief REHNQUIST minimum meet order "knowing voluntary.'' held defect suggest incorrect concluding petitioner's conduct sufficient constitute Instead, much acknowledging long-established principle "must "speak directly' addressed common law'' it, Texas, 507 529, 534, 1631, 1634-1635, 123 245 (1993) (quoting Mobil Oil Corp. Higginbotham, 436 618, 625, 98 2010, 2015, 56 581 (1978)), holds abrogates address all, less clarity necessary them, respectfully dissent. 46 established ""[s]tatutes invade read presumption favoring familiar except when purpose evident.''' 1634 Isbrandtsen Johnson, 343 779, 783, 72 1011, 1014-1015, 96 1294 (1952)). legislate background Astoria Fed. & Loan Assn. Solimino, 501 104, 108, 111 2166, 2169-2170, 115 (1991), thus "does clean slate,'' 1634. result, ""ought deemed repealed, language explicit purpose.''' Norfolk Redevelopment Housing Authority Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Va., 464 30, 35, 304, 307, (1983) Fairfax's Devisee Hunter's Lessee, Cranch 603, 623, 453 (1812)). 47 define context waivers. Prior enactment, disagreed proper standard determining Several adopted "totality circumstances'' test matter law, Cirillo Arco Chemical 862 F.2d 448, 451 (C.A.3 1988); Bormann AT T Communications, Inc., 875 399, 403(CA2), 493 924, 110 292, 107 272 (1989); O'Hare Global Natural Resources, 898 1015, 1017 1990), while others relied solely Runyan National Cash Register Corp., 1039, 1044, 10, 1045(CA6) (en banc), 479 850, 178, 93 (1986); Lancaster Buerkle Buick Honda 809 541(CA8), 482 928, 3212, 699 (1987). neither approach, instead every therefore definition involved. 48 From unremarkable proposition, leaps supplants back. (also known affirmation) party, discovering binding otherwise explicitly timely e §4.15 (1990); §4.19.1 requires, condition precedent plaintiff theory inconsistent defendant Barceloux, cases). 49 speak certainly case-notwithstanding Court's "governs claims,'' __--that never releases. There think non-statutory grounds ratified: merely silent regarding mistake. Further, mention instance, satisfy establishes voluntary; imposition ratified. 50 Not said appears should none. explains, "the employee's] OWBPA.'' Ante, __. Or, put way, "it claim.'' Ibid. 51 concerns, appear directed itself, application context. Ratification necessarily applies adoption deficiency; whole defining voluntary, ways adoption. why noncomplying binding, despite defect, 52 occurs realizes nevertheless assents bound. §1527 discovered); §381 surely ensuring voluntary.2 remains meet. Otherwise, too Although expressly question, holding minimum, 54 displace states affirmation. several translated easily §626(f)(1)(F)(i), 7-day §626(f)(1)(G), naturally seem superfluous applied implicitly months defects, 21-day place. 55 reasons requirement. Certainly supplant entirety. Where (such fraud), relieve employer; arguably situation. exist puts benefit bargain. preclude acts it; limitations run. [i]n return,'' __; (BREYER, concurring),3 interpreted flexibly, immediate always required. §9.3(3), pp. 590-591 (1973); Fleming Postal Service AMF O'Hare, 259, 260 (C.A.7 1994). anything, windfall now retain 57 Finally, operates precludes simultaneously vindicate released 846. is, suit; Nothing implies arises. 58 sum, course, But does, just determined indeed determination error, affirm. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. noted doubted fail title, defines broadly "protect[ing] workers,'' __, suggests preventing unknowing involuntary statements regard, generally, policy, case. 1, supra. BREYER explain alternative-permitting restitution-survives not.

Category: 1