# Raczak v. Ameritech Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 9, 1997 · 103 F.3d 1257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944129

## Case

- **Full name:** Gary RACZAK, Bernard Surma, Loraine Holmes, Gladys Moore, Carole Chandler, Lou Ann Fox, M. Jean Kruse, Phyllis Tarpley, and Thomas Satkiewicz v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, Ameritech Services, Inc., and Michigan Bell Telephone Company
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 9, 1997
- **Citations:** 103 F.3d 1257; 1997 WL 5921
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Guy
- **Judges:** Boggs, Guy, Jones
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944129

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting argument that defendants necessarily violated Section 626(f)(1) where terminated employees were broken down by exact age and salary grade rather than age and job title as set forth in subsection (H)(ii) and remanding for further consideration focusing on the question…
- applying “employment termination program” requirements to involuntary terminations selected in conjunction with complex classification of employees based on assessments of their job performance
- affirming without a majority rationale the district court’s refusal to apply ratification doctrine to an invalid AFEA waiver
- affirming without a majority rationale the district court's refusal to apply ratification doctrine to an invalid ADEA waiver

## Opinion text

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with Parts I and II of Judge Boggs’s opinion, but I concur in the result only reached by Judge Jones on the tender-back issue discussed in Part III of Judge Boggs’s opinion, limiting my concurrence to the facts of this case.
On the tender-back issue, I would only add that there was not a total failure of consideration when the ADEA claim was instituted without plaintiffs tendering back benefits received. The release signed was a general one, releasing the employer from any and all claims, not just ADEA claims. The general' release is still valid, and it is only that portion of the release involving ADEA claims that is called into question by this lawsuit. I reserve judgment' as to whether a release limited to ADEA claims would require a different result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6944129. Public record. Not legal advice.