Legal Opinion
James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided April 11, 1994No. Nos. 92-4091, 92-4096PublishedCited by 107 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
Six1 former Sears employees (Plaintiffs) alleged Sears used its buy-out program to force them out of their jobs in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. Sears appeals alleging there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Plaintiffs appeal the amount of damages the jury awarded, the trial court’s award of reinstatement instead of front pay, the refusal to award expert witness fees, and the trial court’s dismissal of their claim for breach of implied contract. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Branson v. Price River Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Williams v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- O'Neal v. Ferguson Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Shillinger v. HaworthCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- 66 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 13, 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,344, 18 Employee Benefits Cas. 2408 Thomas Dean Smith, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. World Insurance Company, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Aliotta v. BairCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2010
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.