Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

BERNDT v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEM. SALES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


February 21, 1985

CARL F. BERNDT
v.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL SALES, INC.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHAPIRO

NORMA L. SHAPIRO, J.

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Carl F. Berndt brought this action against defendant Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. for discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 621 et seq. Immediately prior to trial, the parties stipulated to the dollar values of certain items of damages claimed by plaintiff and agreed that if the jury verdict on liability were in favor of plaintiff, damages would be awarded by the court upon determination of certain disputed issues of law. On December 17, 1984, the jury found that age was a determining factor in plaintiff's discharge and that the discharge was "willful." This Memorandum articulates the court's conclusions with regard to damages.

 The goal of the ADEA is to restore a victim of discrimination to the economic position he or she would have occupied but for the employer's unlawful conduct. Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1238 (3d Cir. 1977). Therefore, the touchstone in calculating damages is the "make whole" standard of relief.

 BACK PAY The parties have agreed that damages properly include an award of "back pay." Back pay is measured by the difference between the salary an employee would have received but for a violation of the ADEA, less severance pay, and the salary actually received from other employment. The relevant period for measuring back pay begins at the time of loss of employment resulting from the violation and ends at the time of trial. Plaintiff was discharged as of August 31, 1981 but received two and one-half months' severance pay. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to back pay as of November 15, 1981. The parties have agreed that plaintiff would have earned the following amounts: November 15, 1981 - December 31, 1981 $ 2,526 per month January 1, 1982 - July 31, 1982 $ 2,695 per month August 1, 1982 - May 31, 1983 $ 2,762 per month June 1, 1983 - November 31, 1984 $ 2,859 per month

19850221

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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