Dolores Oubre Case Summary

Dolores Oubre, a 40 and plus years employer who worked for several years for Entergy Operations, Inc. as a scheduler at a power plant in Killona, Louisiana. One morning at work, in 1994, she received a poor performance rating; therefore a year later, she was given two options to consider by her supervisor. The two options stated; first, to either improve her performance during the coming year; second, accept a voluntary arrangement for her severance,” Stated David Twomey (2013, pg. 548). Oubre chose option 2, and she agrees to receive six installment payments, which occurred over the next four months in 1995. The main issue in the case is that Entergy Operations, Inc. and Oubre violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act. Stated Twomey (2013, pg. 548), Which sent the case to court.

II. Key Factors

According to Twomey (2013):

• Oubre was given 14 days to review the packet of information about the severance agreement.

• Oubre had poor performance appraisals and reviews. She couldn’t perform well anymore.

• Oubre contacted her lawyers within the 14 days given to her.

• Entergy Operations, Inc. did not give Oubre enough time to consider

her options.
• Oubre was given 7 days to change her mind about the options by Entergy Operations, Inc., which was not enough.
• Entergy did not make specific reference to the ADEA.
• Oubre accepted the money and used it all
• Both Entergy and Oubre violated the ADEA
• Oubre was more than 4 years old, since the ADEA has been violated (p. 548).
A. Legal Issues
According to Twomey (2013):
• Entergy violated the ADEA and the OWBPA by not giving Oubre enough time to review the two options given to her.
• The case went to the Fifth Circuit Court by Entergy.
• Oubre failed to return the money given to her as the voluntary arrangement for her severance; therefore, the district court agreed and entered summary Judgment for Entergy, which was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
• The case later went to the Supreme Court and was handled by Justice Kennedy
• As a final decision, Justice Kennedy reversed the case, because both sides violated the ADEA and the OWBPA.
• OWBPA stands for Older Workers Benefits Protection Act.
• ADEA stands for Age Discrimination in Employment Act (p. 548-549).
Stated

III. Case Answers to Case Questions.
1. How did the release violate the ADEA?
The release violates the ADEA because it did not meet the requirement of the ADEA and did not comply with the OWNBPA.

According to Justice Kennedy J. from Case 14.8 in the book ‘’ Labor and Employment” written by David P. Twomey (2013), “ it did not give Oubre enough time to consider her options, it did not give her seven days to change her mind, and it did not make specific reference to the ADEA claims” (p.548). Both parties are wrong; According to Justice Kennedy J. from Case 14.8 in the book “Labor and Employment” written by David P. Twomey (2013), “ In this case, both sides concede the release the employee signed did not comply with the requirements of the OWBPA” (p. 549). Oubre failed to return the money and Entergy did not meet the requirement of the

ADEA.
2. Did the court find that the plaintiff’s retention of the money given by the employer in compliance with the severance agreement served as ratification equivalent to a valid release of ADEA claims?
Yes, the court did, because it affirmed the argument of the defendant. According to Justice Kennedy J. from Case 14.8 in the book ‘’Labor and Employment” written by David P. Twomey (2013), “ Nor did the employee’s mere retention of monies amount to a ratification equivalent to a valid release of her ADEA claims, since the retention did not comply with the OWBPA any more than the original release” (p.549).
3. Does the employer have a right to a setoff against this employee for the money paid to her by the employer?
The employer may have the right only if the employer have claims for setoff against the employee but not as to ADEA, According to Justice Kennedy J. from Case 14.8 in the book “Labor and Employment” written by David P. Twomey (2013) “ In further Proceedings in this or other cases, court may need to inquire whether the employer has claims for restitution, recoupment, or setoff against the employee, and these questions may be complex where a release is effective as to some claims but not as to ADEA claims. We need not decide those issues here, however. It suffices to hold that the release cannot bar the ADEA claim because it does not conform to the statue” (p.549).