Any person aggrieved may elect to pursue their remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 29 U.S.C. Section 621 or in the alternative bring a civil action in the circuit court of the county in which the person was or is employed for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this article. However, if an action is brought in the federal court, any action pending in the state court shall be simultaneously dismissed with prejudice. Further, any party bringing action under this section shall only be entitled to one recovery of damages. Any damages assessed in one court will offset any entitlement to damages in any other state or federal court. In any action, a person shall be entitled to a trial by jury of any issue of fact in any action for recovery of amounts owed as a result of a violation of this article, regardless of whether equitable relief is sought by any party in the action. Any employment practice authorized by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act shall also be authorized by this article and the remedies, defenses, and statutes of limitations, under this article shall be the same as those authorized by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act except that a plaintiff shall not be required to pursue any administrative action or remedy prior to filing suit under this article.
(Acts 1997, No. 97-723, p. 1495, §10.)
Notes of Decisions
Collins v. Compass Grp., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 6× “(citing Ala. Code § 25-1-29 (1975)). Thus, Judge Smith concluded that the AADEA “forces a plaintiff’ to chose to file suit either under the ADEA or the AADEA.”
Hedegard v. BE&K, 923 So. 2d 315 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
· cites it 9× “” Ala.Code 1975, § 25-1-29 (emphasis added).”
Jones v. Dillard's, Inc., 331 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2003).
“Ala.Code § 25-1-29 (1997). The Alabama Code also provides a two-year default statute of limitations where the appropriate limitation period is not enumerated specifically in the code.”
Robinson v. Regions Fin. Corp., 242 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (M.D. Ala. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” 1975 Ala.Code § 25-1-29. As discussed above, the FedADEA requires that an employee file an EEOC charge within 180 days of the alleged discrimination, 42 U.”
Robinson v. Alabama Cent. Credit Union, 964 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. 2007).
“2001); see also § 25-1-29, Ala.Code 1975 (expressly adopting as part of the AADEA the remedies, defenses, and statutes of limitations applicable to the ADEA).”
Wallace v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
· cites it 3× “* Jim Walter apparently reads the statute broadly to make simultaneous pursuit of federal and state claims in the same court impossible, but the language of the statute is not that broad and instead specifically limits its scope to mandate dismissal of “any action pending in the…”
Shumate v. Selma City Bd. of Educ., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Ala. Code § 25-1-29 . The same order and allocation of proof in cases under Title VII govern suits under the ADEA.”
Byrd v. Dillard's, Inc., 892 So. 2d 342 (Ala. 2004).
“Code 1975, § 25-1-20 through § 25-1-29]?" See Jones v. Dillard's, Inc.”
Lambert v. Mazer Disc. Home Centers, Inc., 33 So. 3d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
“2001); see also § 25-1-29, Ala.Code 1975 (expressly adopting as part of the AADEA the remedies, defenses, and statutes of limitations applicable to the ADEA).”
Pamela Sue Jones v. Dillard's, Inc., 368 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” Ala.Code 1975, § 25-1-29. In construing any statute, it is the duty of this Court to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.