Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 108 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. Cir. March 10, 1997)

Keywords: ADEA (retaliation, adverse employment action)

Introduction: Giles Wanamaker sued his former employer, Columbian Rope, under the ADEA for age discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of Columbian Rope. The Second Circuit affirms, but only explains its affirmation of the retaliation claim.

Facts: Wanamaker was General Counsel for Columbian Rope. When Columbian Rope told him he was being let go due to a financial downturn, he told the Chairman of the Board that he thought the termination decision violated age discrimination laws.

Wanamaker told the Board that if it did not renounce its decision that he would sue. The company then placed him on a leave of absence; and barred him from using the company facilities in his search for a new job.

The company had originally told him that he would have to leave in June 1987. However, the company kept him on the payroll at full salary through June 1987 and then paid him for three months more at 70% of salary.

Law:

1. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA, Wanamaker must show that:
   1. he was engaged in an activity protected under the ADEA;
   2. the employer was aware of the plaintiff's participation in the protected activity;
   3. the plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action; and
   4. there is a nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action taken.
2. The issue is whether Wanamaker suffered an adverse employment action by not being able to use the company facilities to assist him in his search for a new job.
3. Generally, the ADEA, like Title VII, protects individuals from actions injurious to current employment or the ability to secure future employment.
4. The Second Circuit holds that the loss of an office and phone by an employee who has already been informed of a termination decision, and is waiting out his numbered days on the payroll searching for a new job, does not, in and of itself, amount to an adverse employment action.
5. Click here to see actual case.