Bonnie Marcus v. Pq Corp
458 F. App'x 207
3rd Cir.2012Background
- PQ Corporation acquired in Feb 2005; CEO Boyce leads RIF affecting 30 employees, incl. Marcus and Wypart in R&D.
- CDP funded certain R&D projects; Marcus reported older employees would be targeted.
- Plaintiffs sued PQ for ADEA and state-law claims; retrial after first jury deadlock.
- Second trial awarded Marcus and Wypart substantial back pay and emotional-distress damages; District Court entered judgment.
- District Court remitted some emotional-distress damages; Plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest and tax-adjustment; PQ sought JMOL/new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was but-for causation properly instructed under Gross? | Marcus argues but-for standard was required and instructions conveyed it. | PQ argues instructions strayed or misled with some language. | Instructions, read as a whole, correctly stated but-for standard. |
| May a cat's paw theory apply to ADEA claims post Staub? | Plaintiffs may rely on subordinate bias; DelMonte/Kutchins/Imbriani influenced Boyce. | Staub limits cat's paw applicability in ADEA. | Cat's paw instruction proper; agency-based liability applicable in ADEA case. |
| Was a business-judgment instruction required or misleading? | N/A; not needed if law adequately stated. | Business-judgment instruction not required if properly described. | No reversible error; instruction sufficiently conveyed the law. |
| Did the District Court err in denying JMOL given the evidence of discrimination? | Sufficient evidence supported discrimination inference. | Evidence could permit nondiscriminatory justification. | JMOL denial upheld; evidence supported discrimination inference. |
| Was prejudgment interest and tax-adjustment properly handled on remand? | District Court erred by not applying prejudgment interest and tax-adjustment standard. | Liquidated damages sufficed; no additional adjustment needed. | Remanded to apply correct standard for prejudgment interest and tax consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (Supreme Court 2009) (but-for causation required for ADEA disparate-treatment claims)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (Supreme Court 2011) (proximate cause in cat's-paw theory; vicarious liability context)
- Pignataro v. Port Authority, 593 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for prejudgment interest awards)
- Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc., 554 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2009) (tax consequences and equitable relief analysis)
- Starceski v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 54 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir. 1995) (fundamental rule on prejudgment interest allowance)