## Facts

- Johnson & Higgins, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm, required certain “employee-directors” to retire before age 65 under a mandatory retirement policy.
- The EEOC sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on behalf of thirteen retired employee-directors affected by the policy.
- The district court previously held the policy violated the ADEA, entered judgment on liability for the EEOC, permanently enjoined enforcement of the policy, and ordered discovery on monetary damages; the liability ruling was later affirmed on appeal.
- After the liability ruling and injunction—but before appellate affirmance—Johnson & Higgins obtained signed “Waiver, Release and Assignment” agreements from the thirteen retirees.
- Under the waivers, each retiree received $1,000 (and unspecified additional consideration) in exchange for releasing ADEA-related rights and claims.
- The EEOC did not participate in negotiating or supervising the waivers.
- The retirees later submitted affidavits repudiating the waivers, alleging they were not knowing and voluntary due to factors including conflicted legal advice linked to the employer, economic duress, and strong peer pressure within management.

## Issues

1. Whether the waivers satisfied the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) requirements for a “knowing and voluntary” waiver of ADEA rights, including adequate consideration and absence of coercion.
2. Whether, even if enforceable between the employer and the individuals, the waivers could bar or limit the EEOC’s pursuit of monetary relief and injunctive relief under the ADEA.
3. Whether Johnson & Higgins was entitled to partial summary judgment based on the waivers despite disputes over voluntariness and consideration.

## Decision

- The court denied Johnson & Higgins’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held that material factual disputes existed regarding whether the waivers were knowing and voluntary under the OWBPA, including disputes about coercion, conflicted advice, and the adequacy of consideration relative to the potential value of the claims.
- The court further held that private waivers did not, as a matter of law, justify cutting off the EEOC’s public enforcement action for monetary or injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- An ADEA waiver is enforceable only if it meets the OWBPA’s statutory requirements for a “knowing and voluntary” waiver, and courts closely examine coercion and the sufficiency of consideration.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where the record contains genuine disputes of material fact bearing on OWBPA voluntariness and consideration.
- The EEOC may sue in its own name under the ADEA to vindicate public interests; private waivers by employees do not automatically extinguish the EEOC’s authority to seek remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary relief tied to statutory enforcement objectives.
- Post-liability waivers obtained without EEOC involvement, and in a posture where damages remain to be determined, may be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny for consistency with OWBPA and the ADEA’s enforcement scheme.

## Conclusion

The court refused to end the remedial phase of an ADEA enforcement case based on post-liability waivers, finding triable issues under the OWBPA and concluding that the EEOC’s independent enforcement role limited any waiver-based attempt to foreclose monetary and injunctive relief.


United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Johnson & Higgins, 5 F. Supp. 2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)