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.

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

Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., 143 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. April 30, 1998)

Keywords: ADEA (failure to promote, continuing violation theory; evidentiary rulings; jury instruction on willfulness; novel relief sought)

Introduction: Mark Stolzenburg sued Ford under the ADEA for failing to promote him. A jury found in Stolzenburg's favor, but not on all claims, and it did not find Stolzenburg entitled to liquidated damages. Stolzenburg appeals and Ford cross-appeals. The Eighth Circuit affirms.

Facts: Stolzenburg progressed steadily at Ford until he was almost 40. At that time, he was removed from "Private Salary Role" (PSR) status and was designated as "Appropriately Placed" (AP). The net effect is that he went from someone designated for future promotions to someone who was not. Over the next several years, Stolzenburg failed to receive several promotions that went to younger and less experienced employees.

Law:

1. The jury was given seven special interrogatories. The first interrogatory asked whether age discrimination was a motivating factor in the change from PSR status to AP status. The jury answered negatively.
2. The next six interrogatories asked about six specific instances in which Stolzenburg was not promoted. In four of the six instances, the jury found that age was a motivating factor.
3. Stolzenburg argues that the district court erred in granting Ford partial summary judgment on other instances of failure to promote. The district court found that these other instances were barred by the ADEA's 300-day statute of limitations. Stolzenburg argues that the other instances are not time-barred based on the continuing violation theory. The Eighth Circuit rejects this argument. This theory does not apply to discrete violations of applicable law.
4. Next, Stolzenburg argues that the district court erred in excluding two exhibits pertinent to Ford's employee evaluation system, and the related deposition testimony from a Ford employee. Stolzenburg claims this excluded evidence supports a finding of willful discrimination. The Eighth Circuit reviews the evidence and holds that any error in excluding the evidence was harmless. Any inference of willful discrimination is extremely weak at best.
5. Next, Stolzenburg argues that the district court erred in its jury instruction on willfulness. The Eighth Circuit finds that the district court gave the standard instruction on willfulness, and then added additional language that does not find complete support in Eighth Circuit cases. But the Court holds that any error was harmless at most.
6. Next, Stolzenburg makes two arguments concerning the relief awarded to him. First, he argues that his employment records should be changed to show that he is now a grade 10 employee and has been since October 1, 1990. The relief ordered by the district court was that Stolzenburg be promoted to the next grade 10 position available -- which has not yet occurred. Therefore, his request is to change his employment records to reflect facts that are not true. The Court rejects this request. Second, he argues that his promotion to grade 10 should be made in the St. Louis area where he currently works. The court rejects this request because promotions within Ford often result in an employee having to move. Stolzenburg is not entitled to be better off than he would have been had Ford not discriminated against him in the first place.
7. On cross-appeal, Ford argues that the jury's answer to the first interrogatory (that Ford did not discriminate in changing his promotability status from (PSR to AP) precluded a judgment in favor of Stolzenburg on the other interrogatories because Ford never promotes employees on AP status. The Eighth Circuit rejects this argument because there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that individuals who have AP status are promoted.
8. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court.
9. Click here to see actual case.