EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff - Appellant,
BALTIMORE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee, and BALTIMORE COUNTY FEDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, FMT, AFT, AFL-CIO; BALTIMORE COUNTY FEDERATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES; BALTIMORE COUNTY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 1311-AFL-CIO; BALTIMORE COUNTY LODGE NO. 4 FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE INCORPORATED; BALTIMORE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE/LODGE NUMBER 25; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Local #921, Defendants.
Argued: October 26, 2017
from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
D. Ramshaw, Office of General Counsel, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Joseph Nolan, Jr., BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson,
Maryland, for Appellee.
L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein,
Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, U.S.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.,
Michael E. Field, County Attorney, Paul M. Mayhew, Assistant
County Attorney, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson,
Maryland, for Appellee.
GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) appeals the
order of the district court denying its request under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621
et seq., for retroactive monetary relief from
Baltimore County, Maryland (the County). For the following
reasons, we vacate and remand.
case is now before us for a third time. In the first
appeal, we reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of
the County and remanded the case for the district court to
determine whether the contribution rates of the County's
age-based employee retirement benefit plan (the plan) were
permissible based on financial considerations or whether they
violated the ADEA. See E.E.O.C. v. Balt. Cty., 385
Fed.Appx. 322 (4th Cir. 2010). On remand, the district court
concluded that the County violated the ADEA by imposing
disparate plan contribution rates based on age. See
E.E.O.C. v. Balt. Cty., 747 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014).
The district court awarded partial summary judgment in favor
of the EEOC on the issue of liability. Id. In the
second appeal, we affirmed the award of summary judgment to
the EEOC and remanded for consideration of damages. See
parties later approved a strategy for the gradual
equalization of contribution rates under the plan and entered
into a Joint Consent Order Regarding Injunctive Relief, which
the district court approved. The order did not resolve claims
for monetary relief and expressly indicated that ...