United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio's anti-discrimination statute, district court's denial of defendant's Rule 50(b) motion and jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in allowing plaintiff's case to proceed to trial as the language in plaintiff's EEOC charge sets forth sufficient facts to put the EEOC on notice of plaintiff's retaliation claim despite his failure to check the "Retaliation" box on the charge; 2) plaintiff's judicial complaint set forth facts establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA; 3) the totality of the evidence in the record does not lead reasonable minds to but one conclusion in favor of the defendant on the retaliation claim; 4) because plaintiff established the amount of his damages and defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to those damages, damages were properly awarded; and 5) the jury could have reasonably concluded that the supervisor's conduct was willful and therefore, liquidated damages were warranted.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/19/2010
• Decided 07/27/2010
• Published 07/27/2010

Judges

• CLAY

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David A. Campbell, III, Gary A. Reeve