Becker v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

E.D. Pennsylvania

Becker v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

690 F. Supp. 1422, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11134, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,959, 1988 WL 83792

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 11, 1988

DocketCiv. A. No. 86-6866

StatusPublished

This text of 690 F. Supp. 1422 (Becker v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 690 F. Supp. 1422, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11134, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,959, 1988 WL 83792 (E.D. Pa. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 1988, upon consideration of the motion filed by the American Association of Retired Persons (“AARP”) for reconsideration of part of my memorandum and order dated December 3,1987, 677 F.Supp. 351, the motion is hereby granted and AARP is reinstated as a plaintiff in this action. After careful consideration of the arguments raised by the parties and accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, I conclude that injunctive or declaratory relief may be available to AARP members because the alleged discriminatory practices may be continuing or likely to re-occur in the future, see Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 554 F.2d 730, 733-35 (5th Cir.1977); Drez v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 674 F.Supp. 1432, 1438-39 (D.Kan.1987), or that such relief may be warranted by the scope of the alleged discriminatory actions, Criswell v. Western Airlines, Inc., 709 F.2d 544, 558 (9th Cir.1983), aff'd 472 U.S. 400, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1004 (3d Cir. 1984) (disparate treatment action). Moreover, while there is a legitimate concern regarding the lack of identity vis-a-vis AARP’s total membership, AARP members who are affected DuPont employees, and all DuPont employees affected by defendant’s alleged discriminatory actions, see, e.g., Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Allnet Communication Services, Inc., 806 F.2d 1093 (D.C.Cir.1986), AARP’s continued active participation in this action, whether or not it is a named plaintiff, leads me to conclude that this potentially important issue be left for another day.¹

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 1988, upon consideration of the motion filed by the American Association of Retired Persons (“AARP”) for reconsideration of part of my memorandum and order dated December 3,1987, 677 F.Supp. 351, the motion is hereby granted and AARP is reinstated as a plaintiff in this action. After careful consideration of the arguments raised by the parties and accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, I conclude that injunctive or declaratory relief may be available to AARP members because the alleged discriminatory practices may be continuing or likely to re-occur in the future, see Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 554 F.2d 730, 733-35 (5th Cir.1977); Drez v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 674 F.Supp. 1432, 1438-39 (D.Kan.1987), or that such relief may be warranted by the scope of the alleged discriminatory actions, Criswell v. Western Airlines, Inc., 709 F.2d 544, 558 (9th Cir.1983), aff'd 472 U.S. 400, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1004 (3d Cir. 1984) (disparate treatment action). Moreover, while there is a legitimate concern regarding the lack of identity vis-a-vis AARP’s total membership, AARP members who are affected DuPont employees, and all DuPont employees affected by defendant’s alleged discriminatory actions, see, e.g., Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Allnet Communication Services, Inc., 806 F.2d 1093 (D.C.Cir.1986), AARP’s continued active participation in this action, whether or not it is a named plaintiff, leads me to conclude that this potentially important issue be left for another day.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

690 F. Supp. 1422, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11134, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,959, 1988 WL 83792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-ei-du-pont-de-nemours-co-paed-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack