was terminated almost a year later on December 4, 1984.  Westinghouse concedes that Durham was let go as a result of the recommendations of the McKinsey Report, but not because of his age.  As I have just pointed out, however, Durham was improperly joined.


92
The majority opinion, at footnote 9, attempts to explain the relevance of the McKinsey Report to Lockhart's discharge even though Lockhart was terminated months before the report was finished and filed.  Nevertheless, the majority opinion claims that because Westinghouse was undergoing some corporate restructuring prior to the authorization of the McKinsey Report, a jury could conclude that Westinghouse's policy of terminating older employees was independent of the McKinsey Report's ultimate recommendations.  Maj. op. at 50 n. 9.  First, the recordany employer ... by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.
29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) (1982).


3
 Durham was terminated on February 17, 1984 from his position in WCC's Financial Services division as Regional Administrative Manager in Atlanta, Georgia.  He was 50 years old at the time and had been employed by WCC since 1960.  In the spring of 1984, Durham filed a formal written charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  On October 4, 1984, the EEOC notified him that it would take no further action on his charge;  Durham then proceeded to join in Lockhart's suit


4
 WCC did not challenge Durham's right to join in Lockhart's suit since he had independently fulfilled the administrative