Oubre V. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case Summary

623 Words3 Pages
In the Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548). After receiving her last severance payment, Oubre filed a lawsuit against Entergy claiming constructive discharge based on her age which is clearly a fail to comply with the ADEA as well as the state law. The defendant Entergy claimed or argued that since Oubre failed to give back the…show more content…
The release did not give Oubre enough time to consider her options, she did not get seven days to change her mind and the release did not make clear references to an ADEA claim. The OWBPA provides: “An individual may not waive any right or claim under [the ADEA] 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 (Twomey, 2013, p.

More about Oubre V. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case Summary

Open Document