Opinion

John Dibiase v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation

  • 48 F.3d 719
  • 1995 WL 62075
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed
Mar 21, 1995
Status
Published
On the bench
Becker, Greenberg, McKEE
Cited by
104 cases

holding that separation benefit plan providing enhanced benefits to terminated employees conditioned upon the signing of a general release-which expressly included waiver of age discrimination claims-did not violate ADEA even though the release did not provide any additional consideration to ADEA-protect-ed workers

How later courts described this case

  • holding that separation benefit plan providing enhanced benefits to terminated employees conditioned upon the signing of a general release-which expressly included waiver of age discrimination claims-did not violate ADEA even though the release did not provide any additional consideration to ADEA-protect-ed workers
  • stating that “the primary purpose of [the ADEA] is to prohibit employers from acting on the assumption that ‘productivity and competence decline with old age,’ ” (quoting Hazen Paper, 507 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. at 1706)
  • holding separation benefit plan providing enhanced benefits to employees terminated in a Reduction-in-Force which was conditioned upon the signing of a general release (which expressly included waiver of age discrimination claims) did not violate ADEA even though the release did not provide any additional consideration to ADEA-protected workers
  • explaining that inquiry involves whether a “policy facially discriminates on the basis of the protected trait” and “explicitly classifies people on that basis ”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, MeKEE, and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing filed by the appellee, John DiBiase, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.