# John Dibiase v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · March 21, 1995 · 48 F.3d 719

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487858

## Case

- **Full name:** John DiBIASE v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** March 21, 1995
- **Citations:** 48 F.3d 719; 1995 WL 62075
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Becker, Greenberg, McKEE
- **Cited by:** 104 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/9487858

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 c…
- 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 d…
- explaining that inquiry involves whether a “policy facially discriminates on the basis of the protected trait” and “explicitly classifies people on that basis ”
- holding that the burden first falls on the movant to show no material fact, such that the matter need not proceed to trial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487858. Public record. Not legal advice.