This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
FEHA
Age Discrimination

Dennis Gordon v. Prudential Financial Inc., John Greene, Matthew Voelker

Published: Oct. 25, 2008 | Result Date: Jul. 24, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:06-cv-02304-IEG-WMC Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel M. DiRe

Donald R. Holben
(Donald R. Holben & Associates, APC)


Defendant

Deborah J. Broyles

Christine A. Kohler

Steven B. Katz
(Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP)

Linda S. Husar


Facts

On March 27, 2006, plaintiff Dennis Gordon, a 55-year-old managing director for defendant Prudential Financial Inc. in San Diego, retired after 29 years of employment. The plaintiff sued defendant and supervisors John Greene and Matthew Voelker for age discrimination and constructive discharge in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendants mistreated him over the course of four years, were ungrateful for his contributions to the company, criticized his performance, increased supervision, and fostered job insecurity as part of their plan to eliminate older employees. They made age-related comments in his presence twice and acted to deprive plaintiff of full vesting of his retirement benefits.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff could not prove he was constructively discharged. Further, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pre-empted the plaintiff's claims that defendants acted to deprive him of his retirement benefits.

Damages

The plaintiff sought unspecified damages.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor, finding plaintiff was not constructively discharged and his claims were preempted by ERISA. The court denied plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to delete the allegations that defendants acted to prevent full vesting of his retirement benefits.


#121224

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390