Case Citator › Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation

Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
879 F.2d 43
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1993–2007
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation was overruled in part on ADEA liquidated damages. The Supreme Court rejected its requirement that an employee show outrageous conduct in addition to a willful violation.
More on how this was screened

A South Carolina court chose a different rule for relying on another plaintiff's EEOC charge, and the Third Circuit declined to extend that rule after a collective action was decertified. All 34 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Lockhart's requirement of outrageous conduct to recover liquidated damages for a willful ADEA violation.

    Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    At least one Circuit refuses to impose liquidated damages in such a case unless the employer’s conduct was “outrageous.” See, e. g., Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F. 2d 43, 57-58 (CA3 1989). ... We therefore reaffirm that the Thurston definition of “willful”— that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute — applies to all disparate treatment cases under the ADEA. Once a “willful” violation has been shown, the employee need not additionally demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was outrageous, or provide direct evidence of the employer’s motivation, or prove that age was the predominant, rather than a determinative, factor in the employment decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • A South Carolina court allowed employees outside a certified ADEA collective action to rely on other employees' timely EEOC charges despite the contrary Third Circuit rule associated with Lockhart.

    Bryson v. Fluor Corp. · D.S.C. · filed

    The Third Circuit, however, has ruled to the contrary. See Whalen v. W.R. Grace & Co., 56 F.3d 504 (3d Cir.1995). In Whalen, the Third Circuit declined to follow Tolliver because it felt that previous Third Circuit opinions required a contrary ruling. See Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062 (3d Cir.1988); Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1989). ... Therefore, under the unique circumstances of these cases, the court will allow the plaintiffs in these actions who have not filed timely EEOC charges to utilize the charges of other timely plaintiffs for purposes of joining this litigation only.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Third Circuit declined to extend Lockhart's collective action rationale to individual claims after the collective action was decertified because its members were not similarly situated.

    Ruehl v. Viacom Inc. · Third Circuit · filed

    Ruehl argues that because the Mueller-Bellas action had been conditionally certified, Ruehl’s subsequent individual action remains in the “context of a class action” and the single filing rule should therefore be available to him even after decertification. In our view, this proposed extension of the single filing rule does not follow from our precedent, and would make little sense under the facts of this case. We conclude that when a class is decertified because the plaintiffs are not “similarly situated,” those plaintiffs are in a qualitatively different position than plaintiffs in a certified class, and our reasons for applying the single filing rule—in Lusardi, Lockhart, Whalen, and Communications Workers—are inapplicable.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corporation and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace