Sunday, October 09, 2005
Ind Decisions - Is Purdue subject to the age discrimination law?
On Thursday, Oct. 20th at 9:00 AM, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Michael Montgomery v. Trustees of Purdue University. The summary on the Court's calendar:
The Tippecanoe Superior Court dismissed a complaint that Montgomery filed against the Board of Trustees of Purdue University under Indiana’s Age Discrimination Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed after concluding that Purdue was not subject to the act. Montgomery v. Bd. of Trs. Of Purdue Univ., 824 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case. Attorney for Montgomery; Raymond Hafsten, Jr. of Indianapolis, IN. Attorneys for Board of Trustees; Deborah Trice and Karen Orr both of Lafayette, IN.The 4/7/05 ILB entry on the Court of Appeals opinion includes this quote from the opinion:
The question here is whether, notwithstanding Kimel, Purdue is “subject to” the ADEA [federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act] and therefore not an “employer” for purposes of the IADA [Indiana Age Discrimination Act]. Both parties agree that the Eleventh Amendment shields Purdue, an instrumentality of the state, from private actions for monetary damages under the ADEA. Montgomery contends that Purdue is therefore not “subject to” the ADEA. Purdue disagrees, contending that it is “a governmental entity which is ‘subject to’ the ADEA through private actions by employees for injunctive relief and by direct enforcement by the [EEOC]. Purdue also observes that the First Circuit has held that the ADEA remains applicable to and may be enforced against the states. [citations omitted]Here is a direct link to the Court of Appeals decision, now vacated.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 9, 2005 09:21 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions