Andrew Ortony v. Northwestern University, 736 F.3d 1102

Andrew Ortony, a tenured Northwestern professor, negotiated and signed a 2007 letter with Dean Penelope Peterson providing paid leave in 2008 and academic year 2011–12 in exchange for his resignation/retirement effective August 31, 2012.
The letter promised emeritus status thereafter and set out when Ortony would teach and when he would be on paid leave; Ortony signed June 25, 2007.
In 2011, when the university reminded him that his final year would be paid leave and that he would assume emeritus status in August 2012, Ortony refused, claiming he never agreed to retire and filed an ADEA charge in November 2011.
The district court dismissed on the pleadings, finding Ortony’s charge untimely under the 300‑day limitations period and that the 2007 contract foreclosed a claim that he was terminated because of age.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it treated the 2007 arrangement as a buyout of tenure (a retirement package permissible under the ADEA), rejected Ortony’s subjective interpretation of the contract, and held the limitations period began when the definitive decision to end employment was made in 2007.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under ADEA (300‑day rule)	Ortony: limitations period began in Feb 2011 when he was reminded his fall classes would be reassigned	Northwestern: limitations period began in June 2007 when he signed the binding agreement	Held: claim was untimely; time runs from the definitive discriminatory act (signing/acceptance in 2007)
Whether the 2007 agreement was a termination/discriminatory act	Ortony: he construed the contract as tentative, allowing him to stay if he chose	Northwestern: it was a binding buyout of tenure; Ortony accepted payment for future leave and resignation	Held: the contract is objectively interpreted; it unambiguously provided resignation effective Aug 31, 2012 and was binding
Whether retirement offers violate the ADEA by favoring older workers	Ortony: offering retirement packages discriminates against younger professors	Northwestern: retirement/early‑retirement buyouts are permissible benefits that favor older workers but do not violate ADEA	Held: retirement packages are lawful under ADEA (benefits older workers may accept) per circuit precedent
Admissibility/relevance of parol evidence (Provost Dumas conversation)	Ortony: Provost Dumas agreed with his understanding at a July 2007 lunch	Northwestern: alleged post‑signing statements and unattested recollections cannot alter clear written terms	Held: Ortony’s later, subjective assertions and uncommunicated understandings do not override the plain written contract

Henn v. National Geographic Society, 819 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1987) (retirement offers can be a benefit favoring older workers and do not necessarily violate the ADEA)
Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (1981) (limitations period runs from the discriminatory act, not from later adverse effects)
Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) (time to sue begins when the employer makes a definitive decision to terminate)
Lever v. Northwestern Univ., 979 F.2d 552 (7th Cir. 1992) (statute of limitations principles in employment discrimination context)
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010) (distinguishing accrual rules in continuing violation and discrete act contexts)
Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2011) (contract interpretation is objective; private subjective meanings do not control)
Skycom Corp. v. Telstar Corp., 813 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1987) (parol evidence limited to meanings exchanged during negotiations)