- 9 -
v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioners' other assertions are
conclusory statements unsupported by specific facts as required
by Rule 121. See Abramo v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 154, 164
(1982).
Given the stipulation as to preexisting claims and in the
absence of specificity in petitioners' allegations, the
circumstances herein are such that respondent has made a prima
facie case that the requirements for exclusion under section
104(a) as enumerated by Commissioner v. Schleier, supra, have not
been satisfied. The ADEA broadly prohibits arbitrary
discrimination in the workplace based on age. Commissioner v.
Schleier, 515 U.S. at , 115 S. Ct. at 2162. Subject to
certain defenses, the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to
discharge any individual between the ages of 40 and 70 because of
such individual's age. Id. at 2162. The ADEA provides for two
types of damages: damages for lost wages and additional,
liquidated damages where the employer's actions were willful. 29
U.S.C. secs. 216(b), 626(b) (1994). The ADEA does not permit a
separate recovery of compensatory damages for typical tort
remedies like pain and suffering or emotional distress. See
Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. at , 115 S. Ct. at 2162,
2165 n.6.
Petitioners seek to draw comfort from footnote 6 in
Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. at , 115 S. Ct. at 2165,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011