No. 96-1291
Argued: November 12, 1997Decided: January 26, 1998
Held: As the release did not comply with the OWBPA’s requirements, it cannot bar Oubre’s ADEA claim. The OWBPA provides: “An individual may not waive any [ADEA] claim . . . unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary . . . . [A] waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum” it satisfies certain enumerated requirements, including the three listed above. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1). Thus, the OWBPA implements Congress’ policy of protecting older workers’ rights and benefits via a strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers, and this Court is bound to take Congress at its word. By imposing specific duties on employers seeking releases of ADEA claims and delineating these duties with precision and without exception or qualification, the statute makes its command clear: An employee “may not waive” an ADEA claim unless the waiver or release satisfies the OWBPA’s requirements. Oubre’s release does not do so. Nor did her mere retention of monies amount to a ratification equivalent to a valid release of her ADEA claims, since the retention did not comply with the OWBPA any more than the original release did. Accordingly, even if Entergy has correctly stated the contract ratification and equitable estoppel principles on which it relies, its argument is unavailing because the authorities it cites do not consider the OWBPA’s commands. Moreover, Entergy’s proposed rule would frustrate the statute’s practical operation as well as its formal command. A discharged employee often will have spent the monies received and will lack the means to tender their return. These realities might tempt employers to risk noncompliance with the OWBPA’s waiver provisions, knowing that it will be difficult to repay the monies and relying on ratification. This Court ought not to open the door to an evasion of the statute by this device. Pp. 3-6.
112 F. 3d 787, reversed and remanded.
KENNEDY , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS , O’CONNOR , SOUTER , GINSBURG , and BREYER , JJ., joined. BREYER , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O’CONNOR , J., joined. SCALIA , J., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST , C. J., joined.
No. 96-1291
Argued: November 12, 1997Decided: January 26, 1998
Held: As the release did not comply with the OWBPA’s requirements, it cannot bar Oubre’s ADEA claim. The OWBPA provides: “An individual may not waive any [ADEA] claim . . . unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary . . . . [A] waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum” it satisfies certain enumerated requirements, including the three listed above. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1). Thus, the OWBPA implements Congress’ policy of protecting older workers’ rights and benefits via a strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers, and this Court is bound to take Congress at its word. By imposing specific duties on employers seeking releases of ADEA claims and delineating these duties with precision and without exception or qualification, the statute makes its command clear: An employee “may not waive” an ADEA claim unless the waiver or release satisfies the OWBPA’s requirements. Oubre’s release does not do so. Nor did her mere retention of monies amount to a ratification equivalent to a valid release of her ADEA claims, since the retention did not comply with the OWBPA any more than the original release did. Accordingly, even if Entergy has correctly stated the contract ratification and equitable estoppel principles on which it relies, its argument is unavailing because the authorities it cites do not consider the OWBPA’s commands. Moreover, Entergy’s proposed rule would frustrate the statute’s practical operation as well as its formal command. A discharged employee often will have spent the monies received and will lack the means to tender their return. These realities might tempt employers to risk noncompliance with the OWBPA’s waiver provisions, knowing that it will be difficult to repay the monies and relying on ratification. This Court ought not to open the door to an evasion of the statute by this device. Pp. 3-6.
112 F. 3d 787, reversed and remanded.
KENNEDY , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS , O’CONNOR , SOUTER , GINSBURG , and BREYER , JJ., joined. BREYER , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O’CONNOR , J., joined. SCALIA , J., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST , C. J., joined.
