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.

SZYMCZAK v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.

August 7, 1985

BERNARD SZYMCZAK, Plaintiff
v.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

{F. Supp. 536contd} [EDITOR'S NOTE: The page numbers of this document may appear to be out of sequence; however, this pagination accurately reflects the pagination of the original published documents.]

 ORDER

 Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the case is hereby DISMISSED.

 SO ORDERED this 7 day of August, 1985.

 [EDITOR'S NOTE: The page numbers of this document may appear to be out of sequence; however, this pagination accurately reflects the pagination of the original published documents.]

 WEBER, D.J.

 August 7, 1985

 This is an action based primarily on plaintiff's claim of age discrimination against his former employer. The complaint contains two other counts governed by state law: one invokes the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and another which we construe as alleging common law fraudulent misrepresentation. Discovery has been completed and pretrial narratives have been filed. We now address defendant's motion for summary judgment. The facts describing Mr. Szymczak's separation from Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation ("J&L") are not in dispute. We must decide whether these facts support a claim of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff was employed at J&L's Pittsburgh Works from September 1943 to October 1982. Until April of 1982 he held the position of General Sampler. This job involved collecting samples of molten steel from the company's electric furnaces for laboratory analysis. On April 30, 1982, J&L shut down its electric furnaces for an indefinite period of time, resulting in layoffs of 780 employees. This number included plaintiff and all the twenty other members of his "seniority unit." Under the party's collective bargaining agreement, employees who were laid off or expected to be laid off for six months would be reassigned to other areas of the plant to replace workers with less seniority. The most senior laid off employees would be reassigned first. See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1, § 13L.3. and .4.

 In early October 1982, J&L began reassigning workers laid off during the April shutdown. Eleven employees were called back at that time in order of seniority. The first seven went to the Rolling Mills. The next four, including plaintiff, were reassigned to the By-Products Department. In his brief, plaintiff characterized his new job as "heavy in nature". He did not believe he could perform his duties in the By-Products Department because of a long-standing back condition which was commonly known to those acquainted with him. See Plaintiff's Opposing Brief, Mahr Affidavit. He ultimately elected to retire on October 31, 1982. He now contends that the company's actions were taken to thin the ranks of the older workers.

 B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

 After establishing that he is in the protected class, Mr. Szymczak cannot satisfy any other elements of the prima facie case. His failure to make out a claim stems principally from the twist that distinguishes this case from the typical ADEA suit. A federal age discrimination case usually involves an employee who has been demoted or has lost his job. Plaintiff here alleges that his ...


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.