Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Employment: Age Discrimination-Mandatory-Retirement Age-Law-Firm Defendant

Staff Report//December 6, 2019

Employment: Age Discrimination-Mandatory-Retirement Age-Law-Firm Defendant

Staff Report//December 6, 2019

Where a law-firm partner brought an action challenging a law firm’s mandatory retirement policy, the judgment for the law firm is affirmed because as an equity partner with various rights and powers, the plaintiff was not an employee as defined by federal anti-discrimination law.

Judgment is affirmed.

Kaenel v. Armstrong Teasdale LLP (MLW No. 74228/Case No. 18-2850 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Autrey, J. (Gregory Rich, St Louis, argued for appellant; Jerome Dobson appeared on the brief) (Neal F. Perryman, St Louis, argued for appellee; Michael L Jente appeared on the brief).

Latest Opinion Digests

See all digests

Top stories

See more news