Mandatory retirement upheld.

Byline: Barbara L. Jones

OK, boomers, here's some more great news about this whole aging process: if you get forced out of your company, say where you're an equity partner, by a mandatory retirement policy, you may not have a cause of action for age discrimination.

That was the word earlier this month from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression in the circuit, in von Kaenel v. Armstrong Teasdale. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment on the pleadings by the Eastern District of Missouri against the plaintiff.

Armstrong Teasdale was formed in 1901 and now has more than 260 practicing attorneys, according to its website. It says that it defines inclusion and diversity broadly and focuses on "helping professionals of all races, religions, national origins, gender identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations and physical abilities feel a sense of belonging."

Joseph von Kaenel was employed as an attorney from June 1, 1972, through Dec. 31, 2014. The Court of Appeals used the term "employed" although it ultimately concluded he was not an employee. At the time of his (mandatory) retirement he was an equity partner, paid under a "complicated calculation pursuant to the partnership agreement," said the court.

The partnership agreement required equity partners to leave the firm at the end of the calendar year in which the partner turned 70. Another provision entitled an equity partner to severance benefits for two years after retirement, so long as the partner did not practice law. Von Kaenel did not receive severance benefits.

In December, 2014, von Kaenel filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. The MCHR issued a notice of termination of proceedings because von Kaenel, 70, fell outside the protected age group. He filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Cole County court that the court dismissed because as an equity partner he was not a covered employee.

After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, he filed the lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The District Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Armstrong Teasdale, concluding (1) von Kaenel is collaterally estopped from relitigating the Cole County court's decision that he is not an "employee" covered by the MHRA, and (2) because, like the MHRA, the ADEA only applies to employees, von Kaenel's ADEA claim necessarily fails.

Von Kaenel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT