Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
958 F.2d 746 | Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 1992
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Robert Lilley sued BTM Corporation for age discrimination and retaliation after being fired. The court ruled that Lilley was properly classified as an employee and upheld his retaliation claim, awarding him $425,000 in damages plus attorney's fees and interest. For subcontractors, this case shows that courts broadly interpret who counts as an 'employee' under discrimination laws, and that firing someone in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination is illegal and costly.
Key Takeaways
- •Courts use a broad definition of 'employee' to protect workers under age discrimination laws—don't assume someone is a contractor just to avoid these protections
- •Retaliatory discharge (firing someone for complaining about discrimination) is a separate violation that can result in significant damages even if the original discrimination claim fails
- •Losing discrimination cases can cost tens of thousands in damages, attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, and court costs—proper classification and fair treatment are essential risk management
The term 'employee' is to be given a broad construction to effectuate remedial purposes.
Frequently Asked Question
If I fire someone who complained about age discrimination, what legal trouble am I in?
You can face a retaliation claim separate from the original discrimination claim. Even if the discrimination claim fails, retaliation is its own violation. You could owe back pay, front pay, damages for emotional harm, attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest—potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.
Marshall v. Baggett
A corporate officer cannot be held individually liable on a contract signed in her official capacity on behalf of the corporation absent allegations of corporate veil piercing or fraud, and the complaint's failure to allege such facts renders the default judgment legally insufficient.