DeMoss et al v. Boeing Company The

Filing 11

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Dismiss, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 4/4/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBORAH DEMOSS and
RICHARD W. DICKERHOFF,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-16-64-R

ORDER
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7), to which Plaintiff has
responded and Defendant has replied. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court
finds as follows.
Defendant sought dismissal of Count III of the Plaintiff’s complaint, operating under
the apparent misconception that Plaintiffs were seeking to pursue an ADEA collective action
asserting the invalidity of certain notices provided by Defendant with regard to the layoff of
employees. Defendant argued that neither Plaintiff alleged execution of a release of claim
under the ADEA, and therefore they lacked standing to challenge the notice provided by
Defendant pursuant to the Older Worker’s Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”). In response
Plaintiffs note they did not seek declaratory relief with regard to the invalidity of any notice
under the OWBPA and state they are amenable to the striking of certain language from
paragraph 14, wherein they alleged that releases under the OWBPA were invalid. In reply
Defendant argues that if Plaintiffs are permitted to “amend” their complaint, Defendant
1

should be granted leave to file a second motion to dismiss to address specific factual
deficiencies in the pleading of Count III of the Complaint.
As it is apparent that Plaintiffs are not seeking a determination by the Court that the
OWBPA releases were invalid, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Additionally,
the Court finds no need to strike the language from Plaintiff’s Complaint, as it is not entirely
irrelevant to Plaintiff’s ADEA allegations. As such, no amendment is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2016.

2