VERLYN MCGRAW AND MARY E. MCGRAW, APPELLANTS,
v.
WARREN COUNTY OIL COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action because the defendant did not meet the statutory definition of an 'employer' under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Appellants sued under the ADEA, alleging age discrimination. The district court dismissed the action, finding the defendant did not have the required …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employment Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Verlyn McGraw and Mary E. McGraw appeal from the district court’s1 dismissal of their action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. The district court held that Warren County Oil Company was not an “employer” within the meaning of the Act. We affirm.
The Act provides in part that “[t]he term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” Id. § 630(b). The district court found that Warren County Oil did not have the requisite number of employees for the statutory minimum period in the calendar year of 1979 or 1980. The district court rejected appellants’ assertions that directors of the corporation were “employees,” that part-time workers who did not work each day of the work week were “employees” for the entire week, and that “calendar year” was any period of twelve consecutive calendar months and not the period from January 1 through December 31.
After reviewing the record and the briefs and listening to oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing appellants’ case. See Zimmerman v. North American Signal Co., 704 F. 2d 347 (7th Cir.1983) (directors of corporation are not employees and paid hourly workers are not employees on days not worked). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Leonard, 526 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
-
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Garden & Assocs., Ltd., 956 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Zimmerman v. N. Am. Signal Co., 704 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1983)