## Facts

- The Secretary of Labor sued Goodyear under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on behalf of William G. Reed, Jr., who was 57 years old.
- Reed was hired on June 12, 1973 for a sales and collection position at Goodyear’s Auburndale, Florida retail service store.
- Near the end of July 1973, management changed at the store; Glenn Coleman became manager on August 1, 1973.
- On August 11, 1973, Coleman discharged Reed, citing that Reed did not fit Coleman’s plans or that Reed’s performance was unsatisfactory.
- Shortly after the discharge, Coleman ran a newspaper advertisement seeking “sales applicants between the ages of 19 and 26.”
- Reed’s position was filled by a 19-year-old.
- The district court found Goodyear discharged Reed because of age in violation of ADEA § 4(a)(1), awarded back pay, and entered a permanent nationwide injunction against further violations of ADEA § 4(a).
- Goodyear appealed only the scope of the nationwide injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that Goodyear discharged Reed “because of” age in violation of ADEA § 4(a)(1).
2. Whether a permanent nationwide injunction against future ADEA violations was proper when the court found a single local violation and made no findings of a company-wide policy or pattern.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the finding that Reed’s discharge violated ADEA § 4(a)(1).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the award of lost wages (back pay).
- The Fifth Circuit vacated the permanent nationwide injunction and remanded for reconsideration of injunctive relief consistent with the proven scope of the violation.

## Legal Principles

- Under ADEA § 4(a)(1), an employer may not discharge an individual “because of” the individual’s age.
- Circumstantial evidence such as replacement by a substantially younger worker and age-restricted recruiting statements or advertisements may support a finding that age was a determining factor in a discharge.
- In enforcement actions seeking equitable relief under the ADEA’s remedial scheme, injunctive relief must be tailored to the violations proven and the demonstrated risk of recurrence.
- A nationwide or company-wide injunction generally requires record support for company-wide practices or a pattern of violations; a single, localized violation without findings of broader misconduct does not justify a nationwide decree.

## Conclusion

The court sustained liability and back pay for a discriminatory discharge under the ADEA but required that any injunction be narrowed to match the misconduct shown, vacating a nationwide order where the record and findings did not establish company-wide violations or a broader pattern.


Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 554 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1977)