Lawrence W. SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Good Law
646 F.2d 407·25 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1619·26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,897·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12947
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 26, 198179-3345California3,028 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ely, J.

Sutton appeals a Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal of his suit alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. He contends that the circumstances under which he accepted an early retirement amounted to a constructive discharge and that the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) was improperly motivated by Sutton’s age in orchestrating his allegedly coerced retirement. In a bench trial, the District Court dismissed the suit following the close of appellant’s case on several alternative grounds: (1) Sutton did not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination; (2) even if Sutton initially established a prima facie case, ARCO met its burden of producing evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which reasons Sutton failed to demonstrate were untrue; and (3) even if age played some factor in management’s actions, ARCO established other factors showing that it had good cause constructively to discharge Sutton, and thus could avail itself of the affirmative defense of 29 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(3).

On appeal Sutton argues that the trial court’s adverse factual findings of no age discrimination were clearly erroneous under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.