Oubre v. Entergy Operations Case Study

This case study analyzes the Supreme Court case of Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., focusing on the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) in relation to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The case revolves around whether a release signed by an employee, Oubre, was valid and prevented her from pursuing an ADEA claim. The Supreme Court found that the release did not comply with OWBPA requirements because the employer failed to provide adequate time for consideration, a seven-day revocation period, and specific reference to ADEA claims. The court also ruled that Oubre's retention of severance pay did not ratify the invalid release and that the employer could not set off the severance payment against any potential damages. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to OWBPA requirements for valid waivers of ADEA claims and protects employees from unknowingly waiving their rights.

OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC
EMPLOYMENT LAWS

1
Summary
It can be stated from the case of OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. SUPREME C
OURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 422 (1998), that if the release does not comply
with the OWBPA's requirements, then it cannot bar Oubre's ADEA claim. It is so because the
OWBPA has stated that an employee is not allowed to waive any ADEA claim if that waiver is
not knowing and voluntary and also it has been stated that the waiver shall be considered to be
knowing and voluntary only if it complies various requirements of the OWBPA.
In the present case, the main question was as to the fact whether the release violates the ADEA
or not and whether the employer can set off the release or not. In this case, it was found by the
Supreme Court that the release had violated the ADEA as it had violated the requirements of
OWBPA as the employer (1) did not 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.
1. It was held by the Supreme Court that since the release did not comply with the
requirements of OWBPA, thus the release cannot prevent Oubre's ADEA claim. It was
also held that an employee is not allowed to release an ADEA claim unless such release
satisfies the requirements of OWBPA. Thus, it was decided that Oubre's retention of her
severance did not amount to a valid release of her ADEA claims since such retention did
not comply with the OWBPA any more than the original release did. Thus it can be said
that such a release violates the ADEA (Glenn, 2014).
2. It was also held by the Court that the plaintiff’s retention of the money which was given
to her by the employer to comply with the terms of the severance agreement did not serve
as ratification equivalent to a valid release of ADEA claims. This is because the statute

2
has already established various pre- requirements which the employee needs to comply
with for knowing and voluntary waivers and also imposes certain affirmative duties with
regards to disclosing and waiting periods
3. It was also held that the employer does not have the right to set off against an employee
for the money paid to her by the employer. It was held that if the employers were allowed
to set off against employees for the money that was paid to them by the employer, then
there are chances that employers might intentionally violate the requirements of the
OWBPA with respect to waiver as they will know that then it will be very difficult for the
employee to repay the monies. Also, it has been given under the new law that the
employer has no right to invoke the employee’s failure to tender back as an excuse for his
own failure to comply with (MORSE, 2013).

3
References
Glenn, J. J., & Little, K. E. (2014). A Study of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967. GPSolo, 31, 41.
MORSE, K. L. (2013). Age Discrimination in Employment: The Federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The Columbia Retirement Handbook, 199.