Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Marion Motel Associates, A/K/A Park Inn International

4th CircuitMay 5, 1992No. 91-2070
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's jury verdict finding that Park Inn willfully violated the ADEA by discharging two employees (Aileen Peterson and Effie Peterson) because of their ages. The court upheld the award of back pay and liquidated damages.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Marion Motel Associates (operating as Park Inn International) on behalf of two employees, Aileen Peterson and Effie Peterson. The EEOC claimed the motel fired both women simply because of their ages, which violates federal age discrimination laws that protect workers 40 years old and older. **The Court's Decision** A jury found that Park Inn International deliberately violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when it fired the two employees because of their ages. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision and confirmed the motel must pay back wages to cover what the women would have earned if they hadn't been illegally fired. The court also awarded additional "liquidated damages" as punishment for the employer's willful discrimination. **What This Means for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot fire workers simply because they think they're "too old." Workers 40 and older have strong legal protections against age discrimination. When employers deliberately violate these laws, they face serious financial consequences - not just paying back wages, but additional penalty damages. This case shows that age discrimination claims can succeed in court when there's evidence the firing was based on age rather than job performance.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.