Judgment for Plaintiff in ADEA Case Affirmed, and Civil Procedure Matter
Thach v. Tiger Corp., No. 09-2940, involved a negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty action against the Japanese manufacturer of a rice cooker which allegedly caused a fire at plaintiffs' home. The court of appeals affirmed judgment on the pleadings for defendant, holding that plaintiffs had failed to serve defendant within South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations, because delivery of plaintiffs' request for service to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry on either December 7 or 19 did not toll the limitations period under S.D. Stat. 15-2-31 before its expiration on December 11, 2007.
Jones v. Nat'l. Am. Univ., No. 09-3007, concerned an action alleging that a university failed to promote plaintiff in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment for plaintiff on the grounds that 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that certain witnesses' testimony was sufficient authentication to admit an exhibit; 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant's proffered reason for the failure to promote was a pretext for age discrimination; and 3) the district court properly instructed the jury on plaintiff's burden under her ADEA claim, including her burden to prove that defendant's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to promote was pretext for age discrimination.
Related Resources
- Full Text of Thach v. Tiger Corp., No. 09-2940
- Full Text of Jones v. Nat'l. Am. Univ., No. 09-3007
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act