Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PIERCE v. NEW PROCESS CO.

March 6, 1984

JOHN A. PIERCE, Plaintiff
v.
NEW PROCESS COMPANY Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following court-provided text does not appear at this cite in 580 F. Supp.]

 ORDER

 In accordance with the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that summary judgment in favor of the defendant is GRANTED as to all claims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark this matter CLOSED.

 Defendant has moved for summary judgment in this age discrimination case. The parties have submitted extensive evidentiary materials, including depositions and affidavits of parties and witnesses, which present all facts provable at trial. For the reasons stated below, we must grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims.

 I. FACTS

 The undisputed facts of record may be summarized as follows:

 Traditionally, New Process had employed relatively inexpensive lists in conducting its business. However, in early 1980 the rate of response from these lists had declined significantly. The company's officers began considering the purchase of more expensive lists, the increased price to be offset by anticipated higher customer response.

 Over the next one and one-half years this alternative was the subject of repeated discussions involving the plaintiff and the company's officers. Plaintiff was repeatedly made aware of the desire of company officials for higher priced/higher return lists. On August 24, 1981, John J. Smith, Vice President of Planning, gave plaintiff a direct order to prepare letters within the week ordering such lists for testing.

 Plaintiff failed to acquire lists of the type desired. On August 31, 1981, plaintiff was discharged. He was fifty-nine years and one month old.

 ANALYSIS

 Plaintiff's principal cause of action is under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ยง 621 et seq.

 The order of proof in a suit under the ADEA echoes that of a Title VII action. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 4 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.