Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC
880 F. Supp. 2d 629
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Richard Csukas, Jeffrey Marietti, Mark McLure, Benjamin Thompson, Rudolph Karlo, David Meixelsberger, and William Cunningham sued Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (PGW) asserting ADEA claims—disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation—arising from a March 2009 reduction in force (RIF) that terminated them.
- The Amended Complaint contends the RIF was conducted in a manner giving rise to an inference of age discrimination among the plaintiffs, all of whom were over 50.
- PGW, formed on October 1, 2008 after divestiture from PPG Industries, operates as an automotive glass supplier and employed the plaintiffs at various points, some through a contract with another company.
- PGW executives relied on unit directors to identify necessary personnel for the RIF, basing decisions on work requirements and various attributes such as education and background; 105 salaried employees were terminated in the 2009 RIF.
- Plaintiffs allege that the RIF process lacked established guidelines, and evidence suggests adaptability may have been considered, with at least one plaintiff explicitly denied opportunities to apply for alternative positions.
- Procedurally, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective ADEA claim, and the court subsequently addressed expert evidence, Wal-Mart arguments, and notice mechanisms, ultimately granting conditional certification in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May plaintiffs seek subgroup ADEA certification 50+? | Csukas argues subgroup is permissible under ADEA. | PGW contends subgroup claims are not cognizable under ADEA. | Court allows 50+ subgroup at notice stage. |
| Is expert evidence appropriate at the conditional certification stage? | Plaintiffs oppose reliance on expert statistics at this stage. | PGW argues expert statistics aid determining similarity. | Expert evidence deemed not dispositive at this stage; may be considered in rebuttal if appropriate. |
| Does Wal-Mart affect conditional certification in this ADEA action? | Wal-Mart is largely inapplicable to the ADEA context as a whole. | Wal-Mart supports denying certification due to class-wide differences. | Wal-Mart is instructive but does not compel denial; two-tiered framework remains applicable. |
| Are plaintiffs sufficiently similar to pursue conditional certification? | Plaintiffs show a single, company-wide RIF affecting over-50 employees with common evidence of age-based impact. | PGW argues differences in job locations, times, and defenses undermine similarity. | Court grants conditional certification, finding adequate similarity to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 862 F.2d 439 (3d Cir.1988) (two-tier notice-and-condensation framework for collective actions under FLSA/ADEA)
- Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court, 1989) (affirmed notice-and-opt-in approach for collective actions)
- Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 656 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.2011) (modest factual showing required at notice stage to find similarity)
- Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 425 (W.D. Pa.2001) (two-tier approach to conditional certification; later-stage reevaluation)
- Lowe v. Commack Union Free School District, 886 F.2d 1364 (2d Cir.1989) (rejects subgroup discrimination claims under ADEA in some contexts)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 951 (8th Cir.1999) (concerns about proving disparate impact and subgroup parity)
- General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court, 2004) (age-based protections extend beyond 40; framework for subgroup analysis under ADEA)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court, 2005) (ADEA recognizes disparate impact claims under Title VII framework logic)
- O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court, 1996) (ultimate legal issue in disparate treatment and impact can lie with age-based preferences)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011) (class certification requires common answers; not determinative to deny certification here)
- Hyman v. First Union Corporation, 982 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C.1997) (common termination action weighs in favor of conditional certification)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J.1987) (varied employment actions across subgroups; factors for similarity analysis)
- Sperling III, 118 F.R.D. 392 (D.N.J.1988) (describes the Sperling triad for maintaining a collective action)