## Facts

- Emery J. Hill worked for Spiegel for over 26 years and served as a regional manager in its Catalog Order Store division.
- Hill was 57 years old when Spiegel terminated him on February 26, 1976, during a business decline and restructuring that reduced regional managers from four to three.
- Hill was the oldest and highest-paid of the four regional managers; Spiegel redistributed his responsibilities after discharge.
- Hill sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging his termination was based on age.
- At trial, Hill offered testimony from a subordinate (Matthew Baker) recounting statements by three Spiegel managers that Hill was fired because of his age and income; none of those managers participated in the termination decision.

## Issues

1. Whether out-of-court statements by corporate managers about the reason for Hill’s discharge were admissible against Spiegel as party-opponent admissions under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).
2. Whether the ADEA authorizes damages for pain and suffering and related non-wage losses (including moving-related expenses), in addition to back pay and liquidated damages.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court erred by admitting Baker’s testimony as Rule 801(d)(2)(D) admissions because there was no evidentiary foundation that the declarants were involved in, had authority over, or spoke within the scope of employment about Hill’s termination decision.
- The court held the ADEA does not permit recovery for pain and suffering or similar non-pecuniary harms; the award for “pain and suffering, moving and related expenses” could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), an employee’s statement is admissible against the employer only if it concerns a matter within the scope of the declarant’s agency or employment and is made during that relationship.
- Managerial status alone does not establish that statements about reasons for another employee’s discharge fall within the declarant’s scope of employment; a showing of relevant authority or involvement is required.
- ADEA remedies, incorporating the Fair Labor Standards Act model, are generally limited to wage-type losses (e.g., lost wages/benefits) and, for willful violations, liquidated damages equal to the wage award.
- The ADEA does not authorize separate compensatory damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or similar consequential non-wage harms.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit set aside an ADEA jury verdict where the plaintiff’s proof of discriminatory motive relied on improperly admitted hearsay from managers lacking authority or involvement in the discharge decision, and it reaffirmed that ADEA monetary relief excludes pain-and-suffering and other non-wage damages.


Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1983)