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.

ROGERS v. HOVE

October 28, 1998

JOHN ROGERS, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW C. HOVE, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KATZ

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 Plaintiff in this case alleges employment discrimination by an agency of the federal government, bringing claims of age discrimination under the ADEA and claims of retaliation under both the ADEA and Title VII. Because the defendant employer is the federal government, the ADEA does not provide for a jury trial. See 29 U.S.C. § 633a; Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 165, 69 L. Ed. 2d 548, 101 S. Ct. 2698 (1981). Both the court and the jury heard all the evidence in a single trial, and the court submitted the entire case to the jury, taking the jury's findings on the ADEA claims as advisory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c). The court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the ADEA claims, in accordance with Rule 52(a).

 1. Neither age discrimination nor retaliation for complaining about it had anything to do with Mr. Rogers' difficulties with his employer. Mr. Rogers simply did not fit in with the prevailing way at doing business at the agency. He perceived himself as an experienced litigator, trying to deal with government managers whom he did not much respect. The managers perceived him as indifferent to his job, which was managing the work of outside counsel who actually litigated the liability claims of the failed institutions.

 2. Mr. Rogers treated the government job as a day job; he was interested in pursuing a career as a stand-up comedian. He was perceived as an office joker who did not take his work seriously. The government lawyer managers took quarterly reviews by Washington supervisors seriously; Mr. Rogers did not do well at the reviews; he prepared or had prepared by a paralegal a large binder of papers and was not prepared to engage in the oral interchange which was expected of him.

 3. Mr. Rogers did some good work involving a few matters which interested him, but he was a marginal performer in the bulk of his work in which he had no real interest.

 4. The agency decided not to reappoint, i.e., terminate, Mr. Rogers because of this mutual culture clash on December 15, 1994.

 5. When Mr. Rogers finally learned that he was not being promoted, he went to the EEO counselor and filed a blanket claim of discrimination and retaliation.

 6. His nonpromotion and nonrenewal had nothing to do with his complaints about age discrimination. He simply did not fit in. While he received some early perfunctory satisfactory ratings, the real view was that he was just an indifferent lawyer manager, a lateral entry person who looked down on his associates and a marginal or poor performer at the task of being inside counsel. *fn1"

 7. In some instances where he lacked interest in the cases, he did put the agency at risk on a statute of limitations issue and probably did not take timely action to avoid an unfavorable court decision.

 8. There was no direct evidence of age discrimination. The circumstantial evidence was unpersuasive.

 9. Mr. Rogers and this agency were a poor fit from the beginning for reasons unrelated to his age. He did not respect or treat seriously the established routine of obtaining higher level approvals for the management and settlement of cases.

 10. I credit the testimony of Fitzgerald that Rogers' performance was disappointing, he did not appear to try.

 11. I also credit Mulry's testimony that Rogers' performance was spotty, that he was not a hard worker, that his work usually came in at the last minute and required revisions and that he was a ...


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.