“[T]he Supreme Court has clarified that the concern for ensuring a two-tiered liability scheme is ‘misplaced’ and that the focus should strictly be on whether the employer’s actions were in willful violation of the ADEA as provided in the statute.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he Supreme Court has clarified that the concern for ensuring a two-tiered liability scheme is ‘misplaced’ and that the focus should strictly be on whether the employer’s actions were in willful violation of the ADEA as provided in the statute.”
- testimony that owner discussed plaintiffs age was sufficient evidence for jury to reasonably find that age was factor in discharge decision
- "[I]t is a willful violation of the law as opposed to voluntary conduct in general that is required."
- "[I]t is a willful violation as opposed to voluntary conduct in general that is required.''
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion prepared for the majority although under the evidence and the Thurston test, the issue of “willfulness” is an extremely close question. I write separately to state that we should direct the district courts to use language similar to that found in Instruction No. 5.14, Eighth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, nothing more. Attempts to help the jury better understand the meaning of willfulness in the two-tiered concept inherent in the ADEA tend to confuse rather than enlighten. This is because we generally try to use criminal law concepts and these ideas do not readily transfer to issues raised in civil litigation under the ADEA.