Lawrence H. JACKSON, II, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
702 F.2d 197·31 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,468·31 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 686·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29399
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 25, 198382-3040California2,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ferguson, J.

Defendant Shell Oil appeals from the district court’s denial of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following a jury verdict for the plaintiff under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 . Shell contends that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the jury’s determination, first, that Shell discriminated on the basis of age and, second, that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages. We affirm the district court.

FACTS:

Lawrence Jackson lost his job as a sales representative in Shell’s animal health business when Shell sold the business to the Diamond Shamrock Corporation in 1979. In September 1978, secret negotiations for the sale began. Diamond wanted to purchase a “going concern” and therefore wished to employ most of the workers currently with the business, especially the salespeople. It therefore agreed to offer Shell’s employees comparable salaries, benefits, and seniority. Shell agreed, with a few exceptions for the most part irrelevant here, to terminate the animal health personnel as Shell employees. A relevant exception was Ann Wendell, a sales representative, who had previously expressed a…

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.