Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employee sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) without first filing a state claim. The Supreme Court held that filing a state claim is mandatory but does not need to be timely under state law. The federal suit should be stayed, not dismissed.
Legal Significance: Established that ADEA plaintiffs in “deferral states” must first file a state claim, but this filing is not subject to state statutes of limitations. This preserves federal rights even after a claimant’s state procedural default.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent Joseph Evans was involuntarily retired by petitioner Oscar Mayer & Co. He filed a notice of intent to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) with the U.S. Department of Labor. Evans inquired with the Department whether he also needed to file a complaint with the Iowa State Civil Rights Commission. Relying on the Department’s incorrect advice that no state filing was necessary, Evans did not file a state claim. After federal conciliation efforts failed, Evans sued Oscar Mayer in federal court. The company moved to dismiss, arguing that § 14(b) of the ADEA required Evans to first resort to state administrative remedies, as Iowa was a “deferral state” with its own age discrimination law and enforcement agency. By the time of the federal suit, Iowa’s 120-day statute of limitations for filing an age discrimination claim had expired. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does § 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act require a claimant to first commence proceedings with a relevant state agency before filing a federal lawsuit, and if so, must that state filing comply with the state’s statute of limitations?
Yes, § 14(b) mandates prior resort to state administrative remedies, but it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does § 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act require a claimant to first commence proceedings with a relevant state agency before filing a federal lawsuit, and if so, must that state filing comply with the state’s statute of limitations?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for ADEA litigation, ensuring that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
Legal Rule
Under § 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, it determined that resort Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- § 14(b) of the ADEA requires plaintiffs in deferral states to