Sources Federal Law-Discipline & Termination-Reductions in Force and WARN

Saturday, November 22, 2008
  1. Study rendered by Cognetics Business Research Firm in 1993 indicated that Fortune 500 companies eliminated 4.7 million people or approximately one quarter of their workforce between 1983 and 1993.

  2. Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691, 697 (9th Cir. 1981) (employer's termination selection list reflected name, age, salary, and net savings on termination. Selection criteria were restrictedto cost savings. Bank had considered and rejected a wage freeze and the court found that age discrimination was a "determining factor" in the employer's decision.); Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1983).

  3. Roe v. General Motors Corporation, 457 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1972) (race discrimination case brought about as a result of subjective evaluation of African Americans for termination by white supervisors.) See also, Patterson v. American Tobacco Company, 535 F.2d 257 (4th Cir.) cert den, 429 U.S. 902 (1976).

  4. See, Matsie v. Great Lakes Steel Corporation, 424 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D. Mich. 1976). (supervisory ratings focused upon 19 skill categories); Stringfellow v. Monsano Co., 320 F. Supp. 1175 (W. D. Ark. 1970) (supervisory review of 18 categories with opportunity given to terminated employees to review and comment on evaluations).

  5. Brito v. Zia Company, 478 F.2d 1200, 1206 (10th Cir. 1973).
  6. Loiseau v. Department of Human Resources, 567 F. Supp. 1211 (D. Ore. 1983).

  7. Dace v. ACF Industries, Inc., 722 F.2d 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (employer's explanation that demotion was based upon performance was impeached where performance appraisal immediately prior to the demotion praised plaintiff's job performance.)

  8. Compare, Roe v. General Motors Corporation, 457 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1972) with Stoller v. Marsh, 682 F.2d 971 (D.C. Cir. 1982) cert den 460 U.S. 1037 (1983).

  9. Holly v. Sanyo Manufacturing, Inc., 771 F2d 1161 (8th Cir. 1985) (court found a reduction in force involving a skills analysis as nondiscriminatory stating that "the ADEA is not intended to be utilized as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decision" made by an employer.); See also, Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 761 F.2d 502, 507 (8th Cir. 1984).

  10. See, Schmid v. Forsch, 680 F.2d 248 (D.C. Cir. 1982). (ADEA case in which employer's motion for summary judgment was denied as there existed evidence suggesting that younger employees were transferred and given consolidated positions, where older employees were simply terminated.)

  11. See, Surrisi v. Conwed Corporation, 510 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1975).

  12. See, McCorstin v. United States Steel Corporation, 621 F.2d 749, 754-55 (5th Cir. 1980).

  13. See, Zick v. Verson All-Steel Press Company, 41 FEP 1828 (N.D. Ill. 1986).

  14. See, Christie v. Foremost Insurance Company, 785 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1986).

  15. ERISA § 1002 (1); 29 CFR § 2510.3-2 (b).
Login to read more.


Username: *

Password: *
Accept terms *
Login failed.
copyright 2000 - 2021 Curtis Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. | Access to the HR Care publications is subject to certain terms and conditions.
Learn about our online compliance training at