## Facts

- Dr. Robert Raymond, a patent lawyer with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, worked for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI) beginning in 1994 as chief patent counsel, leading the patent law group and reporting to the general counsel.
- In October 2002, near Raymond’s 63rd birthday, BIPI gave him the title “Vice President, Intellectual Property,” without materially changing his duties; internal materials linked the title to succession planning and anticipated retirement in about two years.
- In 2003 BIPI began positioning a successor; in August 2003 it hired Michael Morris, who initially reported to Raymond.
- Over time, Morris assumed Raymond’s managerial and professional responsibilities; department attorneys shifted to reporting to Morris, who ultimately reported directly to the general counsel and was treated as the department’s functional head by 2004.
- In September 2004 BIPI informed Raymond it maintained a mandatory retirement policy at age 65 for executives and required his retirement effective October 31, 2004, shortly after his 65th birthday.
- Raymond filed suit alleging age-based forced retirement in violation of the ADEA and Connecticut law, along with willfulness and contract claims.
- After leaving BIPI, Raymond pursued limited job-search efforts and later did some expert-witness work, pursuing it more seriously years later.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial in January 2009.

## Issues

1. Whether BIPI proved that, during the two years immediately preceding retirement, Raymond was a “bona fide executive” or “high policymaking employee” under 29 U.S.C. § 631(c), permitting mandatory retirement at age 65.
2. If the § 631(c) exemption did not apply, whether BIPI’s enforcement of an age-65 retirement policy violated the ADEA and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.
3. What effect, if any, Raymond’s mitigation efforts had on the relief awarded.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Raymond on his ADEA claim and the parallel Connecticut statutory claim.
- The court held BIPI did not carry its burden to establish the § 631(c) exemption because it failed to prove Raymond was a bona fide executive or high policymaker during the relevant two-year period.
- The court found that Raymond’s formal vice president title did not control; the evidence showed diminished managerial control and policy authority as Morris took over department leadership.
- The court considered mitigation evidence in determining the scope of remedies.

## Legal Principles

- The ADEA generally prohibits mandatory retirement based on age; the § 631(c) exemption is a narrow, employer-proved exception.
- The employer bears the burden to prove the exemption’s requirements, including that the employee functioned as a bona fide executive or high policymaker during the two years immediately preceding retirement.
- Courts evaluate the substance of the employee’s authority and role, not titles or nominal promotions, when applying the executive/high policymaker standard.
- High-level specialized or advisory work, without significant control over broad managerial decisions or company policy, is insufficient to qualify for the § 631(c) exemption.

## Conclusion

The court held that BIPI unlawfully forced Raymond to retire at age 65 because it failed to prove he was a bona fide executive or high policymaker under ADEA § 631(c) during the two years before retirement, making the mandatory retirement policy unlawful as applied and establishing liability under both federal and Connecticut age-discrimination law.


Raymond v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 653 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2009)