- 8 -
Stat. 978. As a result, petitioner and the class members who
signed the separation agreements and received severance pay were
able to file administrative discrimination complaints and bring
suit against APV, notwithstanding any purported release of their
claims against APV in the separation agreements.
On October 16, 1991, petitioner filed an administrative
complaint, using documents prepared by Fox & Fox, setting forth
the basis of his age discrimination claim against APV, with
DILHR. Around March 1992, DILHR sent a copy of petitioner’s
complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). The initiation of these administrative discrimination
claims was a condition precedent to bringing suit against APV
under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202, sec. 2, 81 Stat. 602, current version at
29 U.S.C. secs. 621-633a (1994).
On June 16, 1992, Fox & Fox filed a complaint on behalf of
petitioner and the other class members against APV in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The
complaint alleged a deprivation of their rights under ADEA and
sought back wages, liquidated damages, reinstatement or front pay
in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees and costs, and
demanded a trial by jury.
EEOC had initially recommended that the members of the class
settle their age discrimination suit for less than $1 million in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011