Raymond v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

653 F. Supp 2d 151 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Raymond v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
653 F. Supp 2d 151 (2009)

CS

Facts

In 1994, Robert Raymond (plaintiff) began working for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI) (defendant) as its chief patent counsel. In October 2002, the month of his sixty-third birthday, Raymond was given the additional title of vice president. This was not accompanied by an increase in Raymond’s duties or responsibilities but was done because BIPI believed a vice-president title was necessary to attract an external successor for Raymond upon his retirement. In August 2003, BIPI hired Michael Morris as an in-house patent attorney. Morris initially reported to Raymond but gradually assumed Raymond’s duties and eventually reported to BIPI’s general counsel instead of Raymond. The other attorneys in BIPI’s patent department who previously reported to Raymond began reporting to Morris, who made all hiring decisions for the department in 2004, and in April 2004, BIPI’s general counsel referred to Morris as the de facto head of the department. In September 2004, nearing his sixty-fifth birthday, Raymond was told that BIPI had a mandatory age-65 retirement policy for executives. Over his objections that this policy was illegal, BIPI informed Raymond that his retirement would become effective on October 31, 2004, two days after his sixty-fifth birthday. Following his forced retirement, Raymond’s efforts to secure employment elsewhere—all of which were unsuccessful—mainly consisted of talking with a headhunter, passing out his business cards at two industry events, and sending his resume to about 12 law firms. Raymond eventually began working as an expert witness but did not pursue this work in earnest until 2008. In August 2006, Raymond sued BIPI, alleging, among other things, that BIPI’s enforcement of its mandatory retirement policy against him violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bryant, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership