Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROSEN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Laverne Kulling, Richard A. Beal, and William A. Scheib brought suit in this Court on September 3, 1999, alleging that Plaintiffs Beal and Scheib and Plaintiff Kulling’s late husband, Carl G. Kulling, were unlawfully discharged from their employment with Defendant Toyoda Machinery U.S.A. Corporation (“Toyoda”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Defendant Grinders For Industry, Inc. (“GFI”), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Plaintiff Kulling also has asserted a derivative claim for loss of consortium, as well as a derivative claim as personal representative of the estate of Carl Kulling, seeking additional monetary damages under Michigan’s wrongful death statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.2922, for Mr. Kulling’s suicide just over two months after Defendants terminated his employment. By motion filed on May 19, 2000, Defendants now seek an - award of summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. In support of this motion, Defendants argue (i) that the challenged employment actions were part of a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) undertaken for purely economic reasons, and were not motivated by improper considerations of age; and (ii) that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient causal connection between Carl Kulling’s discharge and his subsequent suicide to warrant an award of wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs responded to this motion on June 13, 2000, and Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion on- June 28, 2000. Finally, on August 4, 2000, the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing various legal issues surrounding Plaintiff Kulling’s request for wrongful death damages. On July 27, 2000, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ motion. Having reviewed the briefs and supporting materials submitted by the parties, and having considered the arguments of counsel at the July 27 hearing, the Court is now prepared to rule on this motion. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court’s ruling. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Parties Defendant GFI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Toyoda, which purchased GFI in 1987. GFI is part of the Grinding Machine Division (“GMD”) of Toyoda, and is in the business of re-manufacturing and rebuilding used grinders. Plaintiffs Beal and Scheib and the late husband of Plaintiff Kulling, Carl Kulling, all were employed by GFI prior to its acquisition by Toyoda, and they continued as employees at Defendants’ facility in Wixom, Michigan following this acquisition. Each Plaintiff held a supervisory middle-management position at the time he was discharged on November 7, 1997. Carl Kulling began working for GFI on November 9, 1972 as an Electric Panel Builder, and held the position of Shipping and Receiving Supervisor at the time of his discharge. Plaintiff Beal was first employed by GFI in December of 1972, and had the title of Purchasing Manager in November of 1997. Plaintiff Scheib began working for GFI in January of 1985, and was employed as Manager of Mechanical Engineering at the time of his discharge. All three Plaintiffs were over the age of 50 when they were discharged — Carl Kulling was 60, Richard Beal was 53, and William Scheib was 60. B. The Circumstances Surrounding Plaintiffs’ Discharges According to Defendants, Plaintiffs were terminated pursuant to a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) carried out by Defendants in late 1997 and early 1998. Toyoda’s president, Howard Michael, testified at his deposition that Defendants’ GMD had sustained losses the previous few years, and that he elected to reduce this division’s workforce by twenty employees in order to avoid shutting down the division altogether. Michael instructed Gary Blanchard, the vice president and general manager of GMD, to implement this RIF. Blanchard, in turn, consulted with GFI’s senior director of operations, Paul Lefief, and GFI’s director of engineering, Eddie McClymont, regarding the selection of the 20 employees to discharge. Paul Lefief recommended that the supervisory positions held by Carl Nulling and Plaintiff Beal be eliminated. He testified that, in making these decisions, he “looked at the position that they played in the structure, if I had another manager that could do their job, I looked at how many people reported to them.” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 3, Lefief Dep. at 17.) In both eases, Lefief testified that he had identified one or more existing employees who could assume the functions previously performed by Hulling and Beal. Lefief denied that age, years of service, salary, or proximity to retirement played any role in his recommendations. (Id at 17-18.) For his part, Eddie McClymont suggested to Gary Blanchard that Plaintiff Scheib’s position be eliminated. In his affidavit, McClymont states that he determined that the Engineering Department could afford to eliminate a management position, and that Scheib was the “logical choice because he was the only one at management level in the mechanical engineering section.” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 4, McClymont Aff. at ¶ 6.) McClymont further states that he assumed Scheib’s management responsibilities, and that two other employees were assigned to handle Scheib’s remaining duties in addition to their existing job functions. The first set of terminations occurred on November 7, 1997, and included all three Plaintiffs. Each Plaintiff executed a “Severance Agreement and General Release,” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 5), and each received severance pay. In all, five salaried employees were discharged on November 7,1997 as part of Defendants’ RIF plan for the GMD, and two more salaried employees were discharged in January of 1998 pursuant to this plan. Each of these seven discharged employees was over 50 years of age, leaving 19 remaining salaried employees over the age of 50. In contrast, the RIF did not affect any of Defendants’ 43 salaried employees under the age of 50. The parties dispute Defendants’ stated economic basis for implementing a RIF. As noted earlier, Toyoda’s president, Howard Michael, testified that Defendants’ GMD had sustained losses for a number of years prior to and including 1997, that orders were down, and that the types of orders coming in were unprofitable. Plaintiffs, however, point to Michael’s testimony that his bonuses were tied to the profitability of GFI, and that he received bonuses of $60,000 to $75,000 in January and July of 1998. Plaintiffs also cite financial data received from Defendant, reflecting increases in GMD’s total sales and operating margin from 1996 to 1997, as well as a 31.5% increase in Toyoda’s overall sales between March of 1994 and March of 1998. (See Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. U.) These materials also indicate that GMD suffered from manpower shortages in 1997 in its engineering and manufacturing departments. The parties also dispute whether Plaintiffs’ positions were eliminated, or whether Plaintiffs actually were replaced by others performing essentially the same tasks. Plaintiffs concede that no new employees were hired to assume their former job responsibilities, and that existing employees took on these duties. Yet, while Defendants maintain that several existing employees assumed Plaintiffs’ various job functions in addition to their current duties, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants made one-for-one exchanges, in each case replacing one of the Plaintiffs with a substantially younger employee. In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs rely principally on interrogatory responses in which Defendants identified three specific individuals — Gordon Roe, Scott Miller, and Shawn Schultz — as the “Replacement person[s]” for the three Plaintiffs, while others who also were discharged as part of the RIF are not listed as having been replaced by a particular existing employee. (See Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. B, interrogatory responses.) Plaintiffs also point to. evidence that the three “replacement” employees, all of whom were age 40 or younger, all were promoted to supervisory positions within a short time after Plaintiffs were discharged. This seemingly casts doubt on Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs’ positions were eliminated as unnecessary, with their duties spread among several remaining employees. Finally, each Plaintiff has testified as to allegedly age-based comments made by Defendants’ management when called upon to explain the challenged employment decisions. Richard Beal testified that, upon learning of his discharge, he was told by Paul Lefief that he was “the first of a number of retirement age employees being let go.” (Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. C, Beal Dep. at 64.) William Scheib testified that Eddie McClymont advised him of his termination, and further stated that there was a “corporate plan by Howard Michael and Gary Blanchard to bring ... the younger employees up the ladder.” (Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. D., Scheib Dep. at 59.) Similarly, Laverne Kulling testified that she met with Gary Blanchard on the day her husband was discharged, and that Blanchard told her that “the company was downsizing, and they were letting go of the older, more senior people.” (Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. A, Kulling Dep. at 108.) Defendants, however, have produced deposition testimony and affidavits denying that these statements were made. C. Carl Kulling’s Suicide Following His Discharge As noted earlier, Plaintiff Laverne Kull-ing seeks an additional award of damages under Michigan’s wrongful death statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.2922, based on Carl Kulling’s death just over two months after his discharge on November 7, 1997. According to Laverne Kulling, following her husband’s discharge, he began sinking “into a depression, deeper and deeper by the day, and the little bit that I could get from him, which wasn’t much, was just that he was terribly depressed, and he kept talking about his age.” (Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. A, Kulling Dep. at 142.) Despite this condition, Mr. Kulling secured a new job as a shipping and receiving clerk on November 17, 1997, less than two weeks after Defendants discharged him. Mr. Kulling worked full time at this job until his death by suicide on January 18, 1998. Mrs. Kulling testified that she first noticed symptoms of her husband’s depression at her son’s wedding on December 13, 1997, approximately one month after Mr. Kulling was discharged. On January 2, 1998, Mr. Kulling sought treatment for his depression from his family physician, Dr. Edward Pearce. Dr. Pearce prescribed Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and referred Mr. Kulling for psychiatric evaluation. On January 17,1998, Mr. Kulling visited Dr. Sander J. Breiner, a psychiatrist. During this session, Mr. Kulling reportedly complained of depression and inability to function following his job loss. Mr. Kulling reported his symptoms as weight loss, as well as pacing and restlessness beginning approximately three weeks earlier. He stated his concern that he might be unable to work, and that he might lose his home and wife. Although Mr. Kulling was unable to identify the basis for his depression and anxiety, he spoke of an “administrative routine” he had developed in connection with his prior job, and noted that his new job, while similar, involved a different routine. (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 16.) Dr. Breiner’s notes also indicate that Mr. Kulling reported some difficulties in his marriage. During this visit, Dr. Breiner also spoke with Mr. Kulling’s wife and daughter. Following this session, Dr. Breiner made an initial diagnosis of depression and anxiety, and proposed that Mr. Kulling begin a course of treatment involving at least three visits per week. Upon returning home from his session with Dr. Breiner on January 17, 1998, Mr. Kulling remained distant and generally non-responsive. However, according to Mrs. Kulling, her husband stated that he was going to quit his new job the following Monday, that he “knew he’d been discriminated against at Grinders,” and that “he knew he wasn’t coping with” his recent discharge. (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 6, Kulling Dep. at 176.) The following morning, Mrs. Kulling was in the bathroom when she heard a shot. She called the police, who discovered that Mr. Kulling had shot himself with a rifle in the basement of his home. Plaintiffs have produced an affidavit from Dr. Breiner, who opines, based on his single session with Mr. Kulling on January 17, 1998, that Mr. Kulling’s suicide was attributable to the loss of his job with Defendant, and not other factors such as marital difficulties. Specifically, Dr. Breiner states: It is my opinion based on my examination of Mr. Kulling that he had a significant psychological illness, as expressed by the serious depression, impaired judgment and final act of suicide. The loss of his job at Grinders For Industry — Toyoda Machinery was the cause of the serious depression and psychotic break with reality which directly led to his suicide. It is my conclusion that the loss of his job was the cause of Mr. Kulling’s death by suicide and the emotional injuries resulting in his death. While Mr. Kulling did not show any symptoms of psychosis when I examined him, his death by suicide was caused by this serious depression which resulted in a psychotic break with reality. The serious depression and psychotic break with reality caused by Mr. Kulling’s termination from employment by Grinders For Industry — Toyoda Machinery led to an uncontrollable impose of irrational rage (turned against himself) by Mr. Kulling causing him to commit death by suicide. (Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. H, Breiner Aff. at ¶¶ 9-10.) Similarly, Plaintiffs cite the deposition testimony of their psychiatric expert, Dr. Gerald A. Shiener, that Mr. Kulling suffered from a mental illness caused by his discharge by Defendants, that this mental illness resulted in his death, and that this illness led to an irresistible impulse to end his life. (See Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. I, Shiener Dep. at 148-49.) Defendants advance three grounds for challenging this conclusion. First, they note that Mr. Kulling was able to secure new employment almost immediately after his discharge by Defendants. Next, they point to the passage of time, perhaps a month or more, between Mr. Kulling’s termination and the first report of symptoms of depression. In fact, Mr. Kulling did not seek treatment until' early January óf 1998, almost two months after his discharge. Finally, Defendants have produced medical records indicating that Mr. Kulling suffered from an episode of depression in 1988, following Defendants’ assignment of him to a new position in the sales department. The notes of his treating psychiatrist at the time, Dr. Luis Pomodoro, suggest that Mr. Kulling was experiencing difficulties adjusting to changes in work assignments. (See Defendants’ Motion, Exs. 7, 9, 10.) Based on this earlier episode, Defendants contend that Mr. Kull-ing’s problems in late 1997 and early 1998 were manifestations of his longstanding depression, and that his more recent difficulties, like his earlier ones, were attributable to his inability to adapt to new situations and changes in job conditions. In support of this contention, Defendants have produced an expert psychiatric report from Dr. Elissa P. Benedek, opining that Mr. Kulling “suffered from a pre-existing mental condition/illness beginning in 1988,” and that this longstanding condition was exacerbated by his “difficulty in accommodating to his new employment.” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 31, Benedek Report at 2.) D. Procedural Background Plaintiffs commenced this action in this Court on September 3, 1999. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, filed on September 13, 1999, includes two counts: (1) a claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., alleging that Defendants unlawfully discharged Plaintiffs on account of their age; and (2) a loss of consortium claim, brought by Plaintiff Lá-veme Kulling only. As noted earlier, Plaintiff Kulling also seeks additional damages under Count I for the wrongful death of her husband, Carl Kulling. By motion filed on May 19, 2000, Defendants now seek summary judgment in their favor on each of Plaintiffs’ two claims. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, where the challenged employment decisions were solely the product of a legitimate and economically motivated reduction in force. Next, even if Plaintiffs’ ADEA claims are permitted to go forward, Defendants assert that Plaintiff Laverne Kulling is not entitled to wrongful death damages, because she has failed to produce evidence that her late husband’s termination caused a mental illness leading to the irresistible impulse to commit suicide. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff Kulling’s separate loss-of-consortium claim must fail, because it is subsumed either within her underlying ADEA claim or her derivative claim for wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs responded to these arguments in a brief filed ’ on June 13, 2000, and Defendants in turn filed a reply brief on June 28, 2000 in further support of their motion. On July 27, 2000, counsel for the parties appeared before the Court to present further arguments in support of their respective positions. Following this hearing, both parties submitted supplemental briefs addressing Plaintiff Kulling’s claim for damages under Michigan’s wrongful death statute. III. ANALYSIS A. The Standards Governing Defendants’ Motion In their present motion, Defendants seeks summary judgment in their favor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ P. 56. Under this Rule, summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). Three 1986 Supreme Court cases—Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) — ushered in a “new era” in the federal courts’ review of motions for summary judgment. These cases, in the aggregate, lowered the mov-ant’s burden in seeking summary judgment. As stated in Celotex: In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. After reviewing the above trilogy of cases, the Sixth Circuit adopted a series of principles governing motions for summary judgment. These principles include: * The movant must meet the initial burden of showing “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” as to an essential element of the non-movant’s case. This burden may be met by pointing out to the court that the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of his or her case. * The respondent cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial of a disputed fact, but must “present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” * The trial court no longer has the duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact. * The trial court has more discretion than in the “old era” in evaluating the respondent’s evidence. The respondent must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Further, “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find” for the respondent, the motion should be granted. The trial court has at least some discretion to determine whether the respondent’s claim is plausible. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir.1989); see also Nemberg v. Pearce, 35 F.3d 247, 249 (6th Cir.1994). The Court will apply these standards in resolving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. B. Plaintiffs’ Age Discrimination Claims Under the ADEA Defendants’ principal argument in support of their motion is that Plaintiffs were discharged pursuant to a legitimate, economically1 driven1 ' reduction-in-force (“RIF”) within Defendants’ Grinding Machine Division (“GMD”), If so, it follows that Plaintiffs cannot show that their terminations were motivated by impermissible considerations of age. ■ In response, Plaintiffs question whether Defendants carried out a true RIF in their Wixom, Michigan facility, and they further contend that the evidentiary record discloses the age-based reasons for the challenged employment decisions. Although the question is a close one, the Court is inclined to view Defendants’ actions as consistent 'with a true RIF. Nevertheless, regardless of whether Plaintiffs must meet the burden imposed in RIF cases, or whether they must instead establish a more traditional prima facie case of age discrimination, the Court is satisfied that they have met their burden, at least to the extent necessary to survive a motion for summary judgment. 1. Defendants’ Reduction-In-Force Defense In their motion, Defendants assert that their decisions to discharge Plaintiffs were not motivated by considerations of age, but by a legitimate business decision to reduce their GMD workforce as a result of economic losses within that division. As noted earlier, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that, in their view, casts doubt upon the “economic losses” cited by Defendants as motivating the RIF at issue. Leaving this aside for the moment, however, Plaintiffs’ principal contention is that Defendants did not undertake a RIF at all, but simply replaced Plaintiffs with other, younger employees. The Court finds that this contention cannot be squared with the controlling Sixth Circuit precedents on this issue. The parties agree that the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1464-65 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878, 111 S.Ct. 211, 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990), provides the starting point in this Court’s inquiry. In Barnes, the ■ Court began its analysis of the plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims by looking to the tripartite standard set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). .The Sixth Circuit observed, however, that the elements of a traditional prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas do not suffice in a case involving a workforce reduction, because this prima facie showing, without more, would not support an inference of unlawful discrimination: We do not'believe the same rationale [ie., that an inference of discrimination arises from the prima facie case] applies to a work force reduction where the plaintiff has done no more than show the elements of the McDonnell Douglas formula that relate to his or her situation: (1) that he or she was age forty or over; (2) that he or she was qualified to perform the job; and (3) that he or she was discharged. When • work force reductions by the employer are a factor in the decision, “the most common legitimate reasons” for the discharge are the work force reductions. By showing the other elements of a McDonnell Douglas case, a plaintiff has hot presented any evidence indicating that the work force reductions are not the reasons for the discharge and therefore does not make out a prima facie,case absent additional direct, 'circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons. Our conclusion would not change even if a plaintiff additionally demonstrated that younger persons were retained in other jobs which the plaintiff was qualified to perform. A different result would allow every person age 40-and-over to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination if he or she was discharged as part of a work force reduction. Barnes, 896 F.2d at Í464-65 (citations and footnote omitted). The Court then provided some guidance in determining whether a case involves a true RIF, and thus requires a modified •prima facie showing: It is important to clarify what constitutes a true work force reduction case. A work force reduction situation occurs when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions within the company. An employee is not eliminated' as part of a work force reduction when he or she is replaced after his or her discharge. However, a person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to' perform the plaintiffs duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work. A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiffs duties. 896 F.2d at 1465. The Sixth Circuit extended this ruling in a subsequent case, holding that a RIF occurs even where the position formerly occupied by the plaintiff is not eliminated, so long as the employer’s “overall shuffling” results in “the elimination of one employment position and accomplished cost savings” for the employer. Brocklehurst v. PPG Indus., Inc., 123 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir.1997). Returning to the present case, it appears at first glance that'Defendants’ discharges of Plaintiffs had all of the characteristics of a true RIF. Plaintiffs concede that no new employees were hired to fill their former positions. Rather, the evidence unquestionably shows that the tasks previously performed by Plaintiffs were assumed by existing employees — although, to be sure, the record is a great deal less clear as to which duties were assumed by which employees. Consequently, if it N enough, under Brocklehurst, that Defendants’ actions had the “net effect” of reducing the number of positions within the GMD workforce, then the terminations of Plaintiffs surely accomplished this result: Yet, as Plaintiffs point out, Barnes holds that an employee is replaced, and no true RIF occurs, when “another employee is hired or reassigned ” to perform his duties. Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465 (emphasis added); see also Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519, 522 (6th Cir.1997) (finding that the defendant employer “effectively replaced” the plaintiff by “reassigning another employee to assume [his] duties,” and observing that “[t]his type of reassignment is analogous to hiring a new employee to cover the terminated employee’s duties”). The Barnes Court further cautioned that “an employer could not avoid liability by changing the job title or by making minor changes to a job indicative of an attempt to avoid liability.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465 n. 10. On the other hand, Brocklehurst holds that a true RIF may occur even where another existing employee is reassigned to the plaintiffs former position, so long as this reassignment leaves an unoccupied position that remains unfilled. According to the Brocklehurst Court, this rule is necessary to permit an employer to fill an “essential” position without forfeiting its appeal to workforce reduction as the reason for a challenged employment decision. Brocklehurst, 123 F.3d at 895. This case lies somewhere between the rules stated in Barnes and Brocklehurst. Defendants assert that the situation here lies squarely within the holding in Barnes because, according to the deposition testimony of Defendants’ management, Plaintiffs’ former job responsibilities were “redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465. As Plaintiffs point out, however, the evidence ori this question is far from undisputed. In particular, the deposition testimony cited by Defendants, which indicates that Plaintiffs’ duties were divided among several supervisory and non-supervisory employees, is contradicted by Defendants’ own interrogatory responses, which identify specific individuals who “replaced” each Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that each of these “replacement” employees was promoted to a supervisory position within a short time before or after Plaintiffs were discharged from similar supervisory positions. Thus, the record does not rule out Plaintiffs’ contention that they were “replaced” as that term is defined in Barnes — that is, other employees were “reassigned to perform” their duties. Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465. Under Brocklehurst, however, such reassignments are consistent with a true workforce reduction, so long as Defendants actually eliminated positions and reduced costs. Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to challenge Defendants’ assertion that a number of positions were eliminated in the alleged RIF that produced Plaintiffs’ discharges. Arguably, though, Brocklehurst can be read as carving out only a limited exception to Barnes ’ rule of “reassignment,” under which an employer may reassign an employee to a vacated but “essential” position without forfeiting its appeal to an economically motivated RIF. See Brockle-hurst, 123 F.3d at 895 (emphasizing the employer’s argument that the plaintiffs position in that case was not eliminated because it was deemed “essential”). Viewed in this way, Brocklehurst is unavailing to Defendants here, because they claim to have selected Plaintiffs for discharge, not based on any deficiencies in their job performance, but only after concluding that their supervisory positions were expendable. Defendants cannot have it both ways, claiming that the positions held by Plaintiffs were deemed most susceptible to elimination, and yet reassigning other employees to these same or similar positions shortly after Plaintiffs were terminated. In short, while there are some indications of a genuine workforce reduction in this case, other evidence points in the opposite direction. In any event, the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve this issue because, under either a RIF-based or traditional McDonnell Douglas analysis, Plaintiffs have identified issues of fact that preclude an award of summary judgment to Defendants. Assuming, for present purposes, that this case involves a true RIF, Barnes requires that Plaintiffs’ pri-ma facie case must include, in addition to the standard elements (none of which are contested here), “additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out [Plaintiffs] for discharge for impermissible reasons.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465; see also Brocklehurst, 123 F.3d at 895-96 (holding that, once an employer has identified an economically motivated RIF, the plaintiff must present “evidence that, when viewed in his favor, would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that age was a determining factor in [the employer’s] decision to discharge him”). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met this burden, through both direct and statistical evidence. First, as discussed earlier, each Plaintiff has pointed to remarks allegedly made by Defendants’ management in connection with his discharge that suggest an unlawful age-based reason for this action. When they inquired about their terminations, Plaintiffs allegedly were told that they were “the first of a number of retirement age employees being let go,” that there was a “corporate plan ... to bring ... the younger employees up the ladder,” and that “the company was downsizing, and they were letting go of the older, more senior people.” Although Defendants deny that these statements were made, the Court is obliged to assume otherwise for purposes of the present motion. Neither can the Court accept Defendants’ characterization of these alleged remarks as “isolated” or “ambiguous,” where they purportedly were made by key deci-sionmakers as they informed Plaintiffs of their discharges, and where each remark, expressly refers to age. As Plaintiffs correctly observe, the cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable, as none involved such direct, contemporaneous statements by persons involved in the challenged employment decision. See, e.g., Carpenter v. Western Credit Union, 62 F.3d 143, 144-45 (6th Cir.1995) (discounting a statement allegedly made by a decisionmaker to an outside individual at some unspecified time after the plaintiffs’ terminations, defending the challenged decisions); Gagne v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (declining to view a supervisor’s statement as sufficient to establish improper age-based decisionmaking, where the plaintiff herself “characterized the comment at issue as an isolated remark uttered by her supervisoi during a meeting attended by a number of employees, and indicated that the statement was made facetiously and was not directed at any particular individual”). In contrast, Plaintiffs have identified cases in which the Sixth Circuit recognized the, probative value of statements made by management contemporaneously with a challenged employment action. See, e.g., Scott v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 160 F.3d 1121, 1129 (6th Cir.1998) (finding statements by management officials “relevant and probative,” where they were “made in and around the time of the corporate reorganization” and were “consistent with what took place”); Wells v. New Cherokee Corp., 58 F.3d 233, 238 (6th Cir.1995) (“[C]ourts must consider as probative evidence any statements made by those individuals who are in fact meaningfully involved in the decision to terminate an employee”). Plainly, the statements alleged by Plaintiffs satisfy this standard, and hence must be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs have met their burden under Barnes. Next, Plaintiffs have produced statistical evidence of an age disparity in the workers selected by Defendants for discharge. Out of the seven salaried employees who were discharged, all were over the age of 50. Before the alleged RIF, 69 salaried GMD employees worked at the Wixom facility; 26 of these were age 50 or older, while 43 were less than 50 years old. All seven employees selected in Defendants’ alleged RIF were in the former, over-50 category, including all three Plaintiffs. According to Plaintiffs’ statistical expert, Nitin V. Paranjpe, Ph.D., there is only -a 0.1% chance that such a disparity would occur if age were not considered in Defendants’ termination decisions. (See Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. E, Paranjpe Report at 4.) Plaintiffs’ expert also points to the significant difference in the average age of those employees who were discharged (56.1) and the average age of those who were retained (44.9). Defendants complain that the small sample size of Plaintiffs’ data renders the conclusions of their statistical expert inherently suspect. See Brocklehurst, 123 F.3d at 897. The Sixth Circuit, however, has recognized that even where a statistical analysis is “not as probative as [it] perhaps may have been,” it nevertheless may serve to “increase the likelihood that the decisions to eliminate certain positions were based on age.” Scott, 160 F.3d at 1129. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ statistics achieve this limited purpose here. Finally, Plaintiffs have produced circumstantial evidence that casts at least some doubt on Defendants’ claim that the challenged employment decisions were not motivated by considerations of age, but instead by economics and business judgment as to which positions were the most expendable. First, as noted earlier, Plaintiffs point to evidence, including executive bonuses and financial reports, that tends to refute Defendants’ contention that a workforce reduction was necessitated by several years of losses within GFI and GMD. Plaintiffs also have identified inconsistencies in the record as to who assumed the work duties previously performed by Plaintiffs. For example, while Defendants assert in their motion that Charles Queen-er assumed some of Carl Kulling’s and Richard Beal’s job responsibilities, Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit from Mr. Queener specifically denying that he assumed these duties. (See Plaintiffs’ Response, Ex. N, Queener Aff. at ¶¶ 4, 7.) Plaintiffs further cite the deposition testimony of Gary Blanchard, GMD’s vice president, that he specifically addressed the issue of age with Defendants’ attorneys in connection with the planned RIF. The Court need not decide whether any of the above forms of evidence, standing alone, would be sufficient to meet Plaintiffs’ burden under Barnes. The Court readily concludes that the record, viewed as a whole, would permit the inference that Defendants selected Plaintiffs for discharge based on their age. Viewing this as a RIF case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ evidence suffices to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and to defeat Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 2. Plaintiffs’ Claims as Viewed Under the McDonnell Douglas Standard Alternatively, accepting Plaintiffs’ position that this case does not involve a true RIF, this Court’s inquiry then is governed by the traditional McDonnell Douglas framework. Under this standard, the Court concludes, for many of the same reasons set forth above, that Plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims survive summary judgment. Assuming, for present purposes, that Plaintiffs were replaced and not terminated as part of a true RIF, Plaintiffs first must establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing (1) that they were members of the protected over-40 class, (2) that they were subjected to adverse employment actions, (3) that they were qualified for their positions, and (4) that they were replaced by younger persons. See Godfredson v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 173 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir.1999); Tinker, supra, 127 F.3d at 522. There is no question that Plaintiffs all were over 40 years old, and that they were discharged. In addition, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiffs’ qualifications for them positions; to the contrary, they expressly deny that Plaintiffs’ job performances played any role in their determination of which positions to eliminate. Finally, Defendants’ own discovery responses acknowledge that each Plaintiff was “replaced” by a younger person. In fact, while each Plaintiff was over 50 at the time of his discharge, none of the individuals identified by Defendants as Plaintiffs’ “replacements” was over the age of 40. Plaintiffs having established a prima fa-cie case, Defendants then bear the burden of articulating legitimate, nondiseriminato-ry reasons for the challenged employment decisions. Brocklehurst, 123 F.3d at 897. Again, there is no question that Defendants have met this burden of production. Specifically, Defendants state that Plaintiffs were discharged as part of an economically motivated RIF implemented in response to GFI’s ongoing financial difficulties and lack of profitability. Defendants further assert that they selected employees for discharge based on the ease with which their job duties could be reassigned to other, existing employees. This leaves Plaintiffs with the burden of showing that the reasons advanced by Defendants were not the true bases for their decisions, but that Defendants instead were motivated by unlawful considerations of age. See Tinker, 127 F.3d at 523; Brocklehurst, 123 F.3d at 897. The outcome of this inquiry is largely determined by the same analysis employed by the Court when examining this case under the RIF standard set forth in Barnes, supra. First, the Court already has noted the issues of fact as to Defendants’ stated economic basis for eliminating positions. In addition, the contradictory evidence as to whether Defendants truly eliminated Plaintiffs’ positions or instead reassigned existing (and significantly younger) employees to those positions casts doubt upon Defendants’ proffered, age-neutral basis for determining which employees to discharge. More generally, the Court already has surveyed Plaintiffs’ direct, circumstantial, and statistical evidence, and has determined that a reasonable factfinder could conclude, based on the totality of this evidence, that Defendants discriminated on the basis of age in selecting Plaintiffs for discharge. In light of this evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims survive Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. C. Plaintiff Kulling’s Claim for Wrongful Death Damages Under the ADEA As part of the age discrimination claim brought on behalf of her late husband Carl, Plaintiff Laverne Kulling seeks additional relief under Michigan’s wrongful death statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.2922. This statute provides, in relevant part: Whenever the death of a person or injuries resulting in death shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, .the person who or the corporation which would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured. Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.2922(1). This statute further delineates the types of damages that may be awarded in a wrongful death action: In every action under this section the court or jury may award damages as the court or jury shall consider fair and equitable, under all the circumstances including reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses for which the estate is liable; reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering, while conscious, undergone by the deceased person during the period intervening between the time of the injury and death; and damages for the loss of financial support and the loss of the society and companionship of the deceased. Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.2922(6). In their present motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend that Plaintiff Laverne Kulling cannot establish the requisite causal link between her husband’s allegedly wrongful discharge and his subsequent death by suicide that would entitle her to collect wrongful death damages. In support of this argument, Defendants rely principally on Jamison v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 511 F.Supp. 1286, 1291-92 (E.D.Mich.1981), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 830 F.2d 194 (6th Cir.1987). In Ja-mison, a discriminatory discharge case, Judge Boyle of this Court held that a suicide cannot be viewed as a consequence of a wrongful discharge unless the defendant’s wrongful conduct caused a “mental illness which led to an irresistible impulse” to commit suicide. 511 F.Supp. at 1291 (quoting Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal.App.2d 898, 5 Cal.Rptr. 28 (Cal.Ct.App.1960)). Defendants assert that such .a showing cannot be made here, where Mr. Kulling had suffered an earlier bout of depression in the late 1980s, where more than two months elapsed between Mr. Kulling’s discharge and his suicide, and where various other factors, such as purported marital troubles and difficulty in adapting to a new job, arguably contributed to Mr. Kulling’s final bout of depression and his death by suicide. Before the Court may reach this substantive question, however, it first must determine the source of the law, state or federal, that governs Plaintiff Kulling’s claim for damages. Jamison is not helpful on this question, as that case involved claims under Michigan and not federal law. Jamison, 511 F.Supp. at 1289. Indeed, this important distinction between Jami-son and the present case highlights a fundamental issue that the parties completely overlooked in their initial round of briefs: namely, whether Michigan’s wrongful death statute has anything to say about the relief that may be sought under the federal ADEA. This is an issue largely of first impression, and its resolution requires the Court to grapple with difficult questions concerning the interplay between state and federal law. Upon traversing this winding path, the Court concludes that the ADEA does not permit the recovery of damages of the sort provided under Michigan’s wrongful death act. The Court begins its journey upon well-traveled ground. Plainly, if Carl Kulling had not passed away, the relief he could have recovered for a violation of the ADEA would have been determined by resort to the language of the federal statute itself, along with the decisional law construing its provisions. As the Supreme Court has explained, “it is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.” Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19, 100 S.Ct. 242, 247, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979). Further, “[t]he federal judiciary will not engraft a remedy on a statute, no matter how salutary, that Congress did not intend to provide.” California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297, 101 S.Ct. 1775, 1781, 68 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981). Turning, then, to the remedial provisions of the ADEA, the Sixth Circuit has aptly noted the “strangely convoluted piece of drafting” by which this statute defines the nature of the available relief. See Wheeler v. McKinley Enterprises, 937 F.2d 1158, 1163 (6th Cir.1991); see also Moskowitz v. Trustees of Purdue Univ., 5 F.3d 279, 283-84 (7th Cir.1993) (examining in detail the remedial provisions of the ADEA). In particular, the ADEA generally authorizes the courts to “grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter,” but it further provides that its remedies are to be determined by reference to certain portions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). As explained in Wheeler: The provisions of the ADEA, it is specified in 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), are to be “enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided” in designated sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) — and “[a]mounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of [the ADEA] shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of [FLSA provisions codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 216 and 217].” The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the minimum wage or overtime provisions of that statute shall be liable not only in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation, but also “in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). And under the ADEA, as distinguished from the FLSA, such liquidated damages are “only” payable “in cases of willful violations ...” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). (Emphasis supplied.) Wheeler, 937 F.2d at 1162-63. Upon parsing this remedial language of the ADEA in light of its cross-references to portions of the FLSA, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the ADEA establishes a two-tiered scheme of relief: ... [A] person who has suffered a wage loss as a result of having been discharged in violation of the ADEA is entitled to judgment for his back pay (the first tier of damages), and is entitled to judgment for liquidated damages in an equal amount (the- second tier of damages) if — but only if — the ADEA violation was “willful.” Wheeler, 937 F.2d at 1163 (footnote omitted). The Sixth Circuit also has approved the award of front pay as a permissible form of “equitable relief’ under the statute. See Roush v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 10 F.3d 392, 398 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 808, 115 S.Ct. 56, 130 L.Ed.2d 15 (1994); Wheeler, 937 F.2d at 1163 n. 2. However, the ADEA’s remedial scheme forecloses many of the forms of damages sought by Plaintiff Kulling in this case under the Michigan wrongful death act. For example, the ADEA does not authorize awards of compensatory damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress. See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 326, 115 S.Ct. 2159, 2162, 132 L.Ed.2d 294 (1995); Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233, 235-36 (6th Cir.1983); Pfeiffer v. Essex Wire Corp., 682 F.2d 684 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. 453, 74 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982). Nor may loss of consortium damages be awarded for ADEA violations. See Moss v. Stinnes Corp., 169 F.3d 784, 785 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 189, 145 L.Ed.2d 159 (1999); Gerzog v. London Fog Corp., 907 F.Supp. 590, 605 (E.D.N.Y.1995); Reed v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 704 F.Supp. 170, 171-72 (E.D.Wis.1989). More generally, the Supreme Court has explained that traditional tort-based compensatory damages are not recoverable under the ADEA: Like the pre-1991 version of Title VII, the ADEA provides no compensation “for any of the traditional harms associated with personal injury.” Monetary remedies under the ADEA are limited to back wages, which are clearly of an “economic character,” and liquidated damages, which we have already noted serve no compensatory function. Schleier, 515 U.S. at 336, 115 S.Ct. at 2167. Plainly, then, if Carl Kulling were still alive, he could not recover many of the sorts of damages sought by Laverne Kull-ing under Michigan’s wrongful death act. The question becomes whether Mr. Kull-ing’s death altered the scope of the relief awardable for Defendants’ alleged violation of the ADEA. In resolving this issue, the Court begins by noting an important distinction between the ADEA and the seminal federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under this latter enactment, the courts are expressly authorized to look to state law for certain purposes: The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of [§ 1983, among other statutes] for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause.... 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). In Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 585, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 1992, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978), a § 1983 action in which the plaintiff died before trial, the Supreme Court considered whether § 1988 compelled the adoption into federal law of a Louisiana survivorship statute that would have caused the action to abate, or whether the district court “was free instead to create a federal common-law rule allowing the action to survive.” The Court first observed that federal law is “deficient” on the question whether a § 1983 claim survives the death of a party, but that “[s]tate statutes governing the survival of state actions do exist,” although they “vary widely with regard to both the types of claims that survive and the parties as to whom survivorship is allowed.” 436 U.S. at 588-89, 98 S.Ct. at 1994. Given this gap in the federal law, the Court found that “[u]nder § 1988, this state statutory law ... provides the principal reference point in determining survival of civil rights actions, subject to the important proviso that state law may not be applied when it is ‘inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” 436 U.S. at 589-90, 98 S.Ct. at 1995 (quoting § 1988(a)) (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court then considered whether Louisiana’s survivorship statute was “inconsistent” with federal law, where the application of this state law would result in the abatement of the action before the Court. While recognizing the “broad sweep of § 1983,” the Court nevertheless found “nothing in the [federal] statute or its underlying policies to indicate that a state law causing abatement of a particular action should invariably be ignored in favor of a rule of absolute survivorship.” 436 U.S. at 590, 98 S.Ct. at 1995. The Court further explained: It is true that § 1983 provides “a uniquely federal remedy against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Nation.” That a federal remedy should be available, however, does not mean that a § 1983 plaintiff (or his representative) must be allowed to continue an action in disregard of the state law to which § 1998 refers us. A state statute cannot be considered “inconsistent” with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation. If success of the § 1983 action were the only benchmark, there would be. no reason at all to look to state law, for the appropriate rule would then always be the one favoring the plaintiff, and its source would be essentially irrelevant. But § 1988 quite clearly instructs us to refer to state statutes; it does not say that state law is to be accepted or rejected based solely on which side is advantaged thereby. 436 U.S. at 593, 98 S.Ct. at 1996-97 (citation omitted). Because disadvantage to the plaintiff was the sole “inconsistency” identified by the courts below, the Supreme Court concluded that the Louisiana survivorship statute should be applied. Two distinctions may be drawn between Robertson and this case. Oh one hand, Robertson expressly does not reach a case where, as claimed here, the defendant’s violation of federal law allegedly contributed to the plaintiffs death. Cf. Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 23-24, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1478, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (distinguishing Robertson on this basis, among others, in holding that federal and not state law governs the survival of Bivens actions brought against federal officials). On the other hand, the ADEA lacks any provision analogous to § 1988, which expressly invites the courts to look to state law where federal law is “deficient.” This latter distinction presumably accounts for the uniform consensus among the courts that federal common law governs the survival of ADEA claims. See, e.g., Smith v. Department of Human Servs., 876 F.2d 832, 834 (10th Cir.1989); Estwick v. U.S. Air Shuttle, 950 F.Supp. 493, 498 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Hawes v. Johnson & Johnson, 940 F.Supp. 697, 702 (D.N.J.1996), aff'd, 202 F.3d 254 (3d Cir.1999); see also Khan v. Grotnes Metalforming Sys., Inc., 679 F.Supp. 751, 756 (N.D.Ill.1988) (expressly contrasting the ADEA from § 1983, with its incorporation of state law through § 1988). Neither this Court nor the parties have identified any instance in which a court resorted to the law of the forum state to determine whether a federal claim under the ADEA survived the death of the plaintiff. Rather, in each and every case, the courts have relied solely on federal common law, where the rule is that “actions which are penal in nature do not survive the death of a party.” Estwick, 950 F.Supp. at 498. To determine whether an action under the ADEA is penal or remedial in nature, the courts have applied a three-factor test adopted by the Sixth Circuit in Murphy v. Household Finance Corp., 560 F.2d 206, 209 (6th Cir.1977): (i) whether the purpose of the action is to address individual wrongs or general wrongs to the public; (ii) whether the recovery runs to the individual or the public; and (iii) whether the recovery is disproportionate to the harm suffered. See Smith, 876 F.2d at 835 (applying these three Murphy factors); Estwick, 950 F.Supp. at 498 (same). Upon performing this inquiry in the context of the ADEA, the courts have held that ADEA claims survive the plaintiffs death only to the extent that the plaintiff does not seek “punitive” damages. See Smith, 876 F.2d at 835-37; Estwick, 950 F.Supp. at 498; Hawes, 940 F.Supp. at 702-03. Athough Plaintiff Kulling concedes that federal common law, and not Michigan’s survival statute, determines whether her ADEA claim survives her husband’s death, she nonetheless invites the Court to look to Michigan’s wrongful death act when determining the relief available to her under this claim. This argument, however, faces a number of obstacles which the Court finds insurmountable, at least in the aggregate. First, neither Plaintiff nor this Court has uncovered a single decision that looks beyond the four corners of the ADEA to determine the relief recoverable for a violation of this federal statute. To the contrary, it is at least implicit in the above-cited decisions addressing the survival of ADEA claims that the ADEA itself determines the sorts of relief available for violations of federal age discrimination law, and that this remains true after the death of a party. Were it otherwise, the survival of a federal ADEA claim would turn upon the types of damages available — i.e., remedial versus punitive — under a given state’s wrongful death act. Yet, the courts that have considered the survival of ADEA claims have confined their inquiries to the remedies provided by the federal statute itself, and not by any state’s wrongful death act. See, e.g., Smith, 876 F.2d at 835-37. Next, even if the ADEA contained a provision similar to § 1988 which authorized resort to state law under certain circumstances, it is doubtful whether the Court could stray beyond the four corners of the ADEA on the issue of relief. Even under § 1988, federal law must first be deemed “deficient” in some way before a court may turn to other sources. As discussed earlier, however, the ADEA is by no means “deficient” in its remedial provisions; it merely limits recovery to back pay, reinstatement or front pay, and liquidated damages, while precluding awards of traditional tort-based compensatory damages. The Court declines to view the ADEA as “silent” on other forms of relief, thereby permitting resort to other sources of law, particularly where, as noted earlier, Congress specifically amended Title VII to permit the recovery of compensatory damages, while notably making no such change to the ADEA. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s § 1983 jurisprudence suggests that the relief available under a federal statute is uniquely a matter of federal law, even where § 1988 invites the courts to look to the law of the forum state. The Court has repeatedly observed that neither § 1983 nor its legislative history provides specific guidance as to the sorts of damages recoverable for a violation of federally secured rights. See, e.g., Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 34, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 1628, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 255-58, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1048-49, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). Nevertheless, when the Court considered, for example, whether punitive damages are available under § 1988, it did not look to a particular state’s law as authorized under § 1988, but instead looked to the whole of the common law of torts to fashion a uniform federal standard. See Smith, 461 U.S. at 34-48, 103. S.Ct. at 1628-36; see also Carey, 435 U.S. at 254-59, 98 S.Ct. at 1047-50 (also surveying common-law tort rules to determine the damages recoverable for a denial of procedural due process). Upon reviewing these and other Supreme Court decisions in a § 1983 suit involving a murder of an inmate, Mark Berry, by his fellow prisoners, the Tenth Circuit declined to determine the scope and extent of the available relief by reference to the wrongful death statute of the forum state, Oklahoma. See Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489, 1501-07 (10th Cir.1990). In that case, the Tenth Circuit found itself confronted with an issue similar to the one confronting this Court: The difficult question we face here is whether damages in a § 1983 action in which death occurs are l