# Dolen E. Lindsey, Cross-Appellee v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Cross-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · February 24, 1987 · 810 F.2d 1094

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475806

## Case

- **Full name:** Dolen E. LINDSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 1987
- **Citations:** 810 F.2d 1094; 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36,945; 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 143; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2442
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Vance
- **Judges:** Vance, Godbold, Swygert
- **Cited by:** 84 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/9475806

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a district court's rejection of liquidated damages in an age discrimination case was improper because it relied on factual findings "that conflicted with the jury's findings"
- holding that liquidated damages under the ADEA are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the FSLA
- holding that liquidated damages under the ADEA are intended to punish and deter

## Opinion text

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the opinion of the panel majority in all respects except as to the award of prejudgment interest, from which I dissent.
Congress has explicitly stated that amounts owing under the ADEA are deemed to be amounts owing under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b); O’Donnell v. Georgia Osteopathic Hospital, 748 F.2d 1543, 1552 (11th Cir.1984). It is settled that an award of both prejudgment interest and liquidated damages represents a double recovery under the FLSA. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 897 , 65 S.Ct. 895 , 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1944); Barcel-lona v. Tiffany English Pub, Inc., 597 F.2d 464, 469 (5th Cir.1979); Foremost Dairies v. Ivey, 204 F.2d 186, 190 (5th Cir.1953). I can fathom no reason for treating the successful ADEA plaintiff differently from his FLSA counterpart with respect to liquidated damages and prejudgment interest.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475806. Public record. Not legal advice.