 |
|
It's been an active week in the case filed against PPG Industries
by several former employees alleging age discrimination. PPG, represented
by attorneys from Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on Monday, September 10, along
with an answer and counterclaim to the original suit. While PPG admits many of the facts presented in the case, such
as the ages of those named in the case and the methods by which
they were released from the company, which included reductions in
force (RIFs), downsizing and performance-related terminations, it
repeatedly denies the age discrimination allegations made throughout
the complaint. In addition, PPG's counterclaim states that plaintiffs Arthur C.
Rupert, Linda K. Austin, Larry J. Campbell, Kenneth J. Hunt and
Wade C. Bittner "each knowingly and voluntarily executed a
valid and enforceable 'Separation and Agreement Release' …
in exchange for severance benefits and payments to which they otherwise
were not entitled." The counterclaim goes on to allege that
none of those mentioned revoked the release agreements and that
these agreements contain "binding and contractual obligations
'never to file a lawsuit or become a member of a class asserting
any claims that are released.'" The defendant further states that Austin, Hunt and Bittner filed
complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
earlier this year and that they dismissed the claims "with
express determinations that these individuals signed release agreements
on a knowing and voluntary basis." PPG claims that by filing
this lawsuit, the plaintiffs actually breached the contract they
made with PPG when they originally signed the aforementioned agreements. In its counterclaim, PPG seeks "judgment against the plaintiffs
for compensatory damages in an amount equal to the consideration
PPG paid plaintiffs in exchange for execution of the Release Agreements
without revocation, plus recovery of PPG's litigation costs, including
attorneys' fees … and such other relief as the Court deems
just and proper." In response to PPG's motion to dismiss and counterclaim, yesterday
the plaintiffs' filed an "uncontested motion for continuance
of case management conference and for extension of time to file
rule 26(f) report and opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss." The plaintiffs note that the parties have conferred about this
case, at the court's issue, in meetings on July 23, July 30 and
September 11. The next conference was scheduled for September 19,
but the plaintiffs are requesting an extension due to personal circumstances
of one of the attorneys on the case. At press time, there had not
been a decision as to whether to postpone the conference. CLICK HERE to read the full text of the defendant's (PPG's) motion to dismiss the claims. CLICK HERE to read the full text of the defendant's (PPG's) answer to the original complaint and counterclaim. CLICK HERE to read the full text of the Separation Agreement and Release that PPG claims the plaintiffs signed upon termination from the company. CLICK HERE to read the full text of the plaintiffs' motion for continuance of case management conference and for extension of time to file rule 26(f) report and opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. CLICK HERE for the full text of the documents filed by Austin, Hunt and Bittner with the EEOC. CLICK
HERE for the full text of the EEOC's "Dismissal and Notice
of Rights." Need more info and analysis about the issues? |
|
|
PPG
Files Counterclaim in Age Discrimination Suit; Alleges Breach of
Contract by Plaintiffs