Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.

Background

This putative collective action concerns claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a federal law barring discrimination against workers age 40 or older. Edvin Rusis, Henry Gerrits, Phil McGonegal, and David Ho Eng sued their former employer, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. They allege that IBM systematically laid off or forced out older workers beginning in 2012, including through mass layoffs called Resource Actions, allegedly pretextual terminations, and constructive discharges.

IBM’s motion for summary judgment addressed only whether certain claims were timely and whether certain opt-in plaintiffs could join the case by relying on administrative charges filed by other plaintiffs. The opinion states that IBM had filed three non-merits summary-judgment motions and that the court had already decided two of them. This opinion addresses only the motion at Docket 207.

Legal framework

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The court also applied the single-filing rule. That rule can allow a person who did not file an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to join an existing lawsuit if the person’s claim is reasonably related to the conduct described in an earlier charge. But a person who filed an EEOC charge generally cannot rely on another person’s charge instead of the person’s own charge. The rule also has time limitations.

Claims based on untimely charges or lawsuits

IBM argued that the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Earl Gobin, Catherine Rodgers, Errol Back-Cunningham, Scott Owen, and Thomas Parkin were procedurally barred. Gobin filed an untimely EEOC charge, while Rodgers, Back-Cunningham, Owen, and Parkin allegedly did not file lawsuits within the required period after receiving right-to-sue notices.

The court granted summary judgment as to Gobin, Back-Cunningham, Owen, and Parkin. Because they had filed their own EEOC charges, they could not rely on a named plaintiff’s charge under the court’s earlier ruling.

The court denied summary judgment as to Rodgers. Rodgers and her former attorney submitted sworn statements saying they never received the EEOC notice. Because the filing period depends on when the notice was received, and because the usual presumption that a mailed notice was received three days after mailing could be rebutted, the court found a genuine factual dispute that had to be resolved later.

Earlier-accruing opt-in claims

IBM argued that 33 opt-in plaintiffs could not join the case because their claims arose more than 300 or 180 days before named plaintiff Edvin Rusis filed his EEOC charge. The applicable period depends on the state involved, as stated in the opinion.

The court held that opt-in plaintiffs could not rely on named plaintiff Claudia Gehring’s charge because that charge was individualized and did not adequately notify IBM of a widespread practice. The court nevertheless held that IBM had not shown, as a matter of law, that the opt-in plaintiffs could not rely on charges filed by named plaintiffs in unrelated lawsuits. The 33 opt-in plaintiffs therefore remained in the case pending any further motion by IBM addressing that issue. The court denied IBM’s motion on this point without prejudice, meaning IBM could raise the issue again in a properly supported motion.

Later-accruing opt-in claims

IBM also asked the court to prevent opt-in plaintiffs whose claims arose after July 10, 2018, from joining the case. The court concluded that discovery had not revealed a basis for extending the case beyond the latest charge by a named plaintiff whose charge could support piggybacking. It therefore set the forward cutoff date at December 17, 2020, the date Claudia Ziegler filed her charge.

The court nevertheless denied IBM’s motion for summary judgment as to opt-in plaintiffs whose claims arose after July 10, 2018. The court stated that all opt-ins, including Deanna Curry, could remain in the case. Curry’s claim arose on December 22, 2020, but the court found that her claim should remain under the approach it had previously adopted.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted in part and denied in part IBM’s motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion as to the claims of Gobin, Back-Cunningham, Owen, and Parkin; denied it as to Rodgers; denied without prejudice the argument concerning piggybacking on charges filed by named plaintiffs in unrelated lawsuits; and denied the request to exclude opt-ins whose claims arose after July 10, 2018. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 207.