Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc.
651 F.3d 309
2d Cir.2011Background
- Ridinger employed by Dow Jones since 2001; 62-year-old photo editor terminated in December 2007; severance package provided with 20 weeks' pay and other benefits in exchange for Separation Agreement; Agreement waives all claims including ADEA through the date of the agreement; district court granted summary judgment dismissing ADEA claims as barred by the waiver; Ridinger contends OWBPA requirements were not met and there are issues of fact.
- The Separation Agreement 4(a) provides waiver of all claims including ADEA; 4(b) requires no-file but acknowledges potential post-date claims; 4(d) preserves agency rights and clarifies post-date ADEA claims exclude damages but waivers still apply to ADEA claims.
- District court treated the motion as summary judgment under Rule 12(d) and held the language was written to be understood, citing OWBPA requirements; court noted a possible word processing error but found it inconsequential; judgment dismissed the complaint.
- On appeal, Ridinger argues lack of clarity and failure to advise to consult counsel; Dow Jones argues the language tracks OWBPA and is understandable; the court analyzes OWBPA’s clarity requirement de novo and affirms.
- Court concludes the Separation Agreement was written in a manner calculated to be understood and satisfied OWBPA requirements; no genuine issues of material fact were raised; the waiver validly bars ADEA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWBPA clarity compliance | Ridinger argues waiver not written to be understood | Dow Jones contends language meets clarity standard | Waiver written to be understood; OWBPA satisfied |
| Attorney consultation requirement | Ridinger was not advised to consult counsel | Agreement acknowledged advice to consult; not reversible error | OWBPA advisory requirement satisfied by acknowledgment |
| Post-date ADEA claims | Waiver should bar all ADEA claims | OWBPA allows post-date carve-out, but waivers remain effective for ADEA claims | Waivers cover ADEA claims through date; post-date ADEA claims preserved only to challenge validity of agreement under 4(d) |
| Rule 12(d) treatment / factual issues | There are factual issues about comprehension and execution | No material facts showing lack of understanding; language clear | Summary judgment appropriate; no genuine issues of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomforde v. IBM, 406 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2005) (IBM waiver deemed not sufficiently clear under OWBPA)
- Syverson v. IBM, 472 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (IBM waiver deemed not sufficiently clear under OWBPA)
- Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1998) (OWBPA requirements strict; waivers must be knowing and voluntary)
- Hodge v. New York College of Podiatric Medicine, 157 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 1998) (ACD elements of OWBPA waiver not ratified by later acceptance)