From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Bialas v. Greyhound Lines
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
59 F.3d 759 (1995)
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) (defendant) engaged in extended efforts to reduce its labor force and increase its efficiency. As part of these efforts, Greyhound eliminated many job positions, including the accounting positions held by William Bialas, Edward Christensen, and Rollin Cate (terminated employees) (plaintiffs). Bialas’s position was consolidated with a similar position from a separate department. The 45-year-old Bialas was on probation and knew nothing about the other department. In contrast, the 33-year-old who held the position in the other department knew information about both departments. Greyhound terminated Bialas and retained the 33-year-old for the consolidated position. Similarly, 44-year-old Christensen’s position was eliminated through a consolidation, and a 43-year-old who allegedly had better skills took over Christensen’s duties. Finally, almost half of the 95 positions in 41-year-old Cate’s department had already been eliminated. Cate had a poor performance evaluation, and his position was eventually eliminated, too. Initially, Cate’s 43-year-old supervisor took over Cate’s duties. The supervisor later left, and an employee younger than Cate began handling Cate’s former duties. The terminated employees sued Greyhound for allegedly firing them based on their ages in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Specifically, the terminated employees claimed that Greyhound (1) had not engaged in a bona fide reduction in force and (2) had discriminated against them based on their ages because younger, lower-paid workers eventually took over all three sets of duties. The terminated employees argued that the ADEA existed to prevent managers from choosing younger workers with lower salary requirements at the expense of older workers. The district court granted summary judgment to Greyhound, and the terminated employees appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.