Supremes do it to the worker again - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-20-2009, 05:23 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Supremes do it to the worker again

Quote:
Age is Different: Supreme Court Raises Bar for Age Discrimination Claims, Will Congress Strike Back?
By Javier Lavagnino on June 18, 2009 12:26 PM | No TrackBacks

Most people know that employers can't discriminate against someone on the basis of that person's sex, age, race, religion, national origin. Most might assume that the law is going to scrutinize those forms of discrimination in a similar manner. But a Supreme Court ruling today essentially says that age is different. Those suing under federal law for age discrimination in the workplace will have a significantly higher hurdle to jump in proving certain age discrimination claims.

The lawsuit reviewed by the high court was brought under the federal law covering age discrimination known as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This law prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older. The plaintiff, Jack Gross, brought his lawsuit claiming he was wrongfully demoted by his employer, FBL Financial Group, Inc., on account of his age. A jury ruled in his favor and awarded him a money judgment, but a federal appeals court overturned the ruling.

In today's ruling the Supreme Court said that a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a "preponderance of the evidence", that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. In other words, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that if it wasn't for their age, the employer wouldn't have acted against them.

This is entirely different than suits brought under Title VII, which governs the other categories of impermissible discrimination listed above (sex, race, etc.). In these types of suits where a plaintiff is alleging a mixed motive (i.e. some permissible reasons, some impermissible reasons) for an employer's move against them, a plaintiff simply needs to show that an impermissible reason was "a motivating factor" in the decision. It is at least somewhat ironic that relatively recent Congressional changes to Title VII (lightening the load on plaintiffs in mixed motive cases), may actually have facilitated today's decision, which burdens plaintiffs in the ADEA cases.

Today's case shows how the law doesn't treat all forms of discrimination, well ... equally. In the case of age discrimination, one might understandably be left scratching their head and wondering why that is. The four dissenting liberal justices argued as much, and it wouldn't be much of a shock at all to see the current Democrat-controlled Congress slam this ruling via legislation amending or clarifying the standard used in ADEA cases. As noted by the AP, the same thing happened after the Supreme Court tightened the screws on wage discrimination claims in 2007, and Congress responded with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Age is Different: Supreme Court Raises Bar for Age Discrimination Claims, Will Congress Strike Back? - Employment Law - Law and Daily Life


Here's hoping Congress acts as quickly here as it did in Ledbetter.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 11:33 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:19 PM
What do you expect Congress to do?

Have you looked into the lawsuit?

I think the 5 got it right.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2009, 01:57 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:19 AM
I expect Congress to change the language in ADEA (much as it did when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act after she lost her case) to make the burden of proof the same for age discrimination as it is for other forms of illegal discrimination. The SCOTUS pretty much threw it back to Congress to change the law to address the perceived weakness in the wording (and possibly to include it in Title VII) and I hope Congress picks up that ball.

This was not a narrow judgment and there was some suggestion that the sweep of this judgment might include disability discrimination also.

I'm not arguing the specific lawsuit. I'm arguing the scope of the judgment.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2009, 10:41 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:19 AM
It's already difficult enough to prove age discrimination-someone in my family tried through an EEOC hearing and of course that failed. I think age discrimination is probably the easiest thing for employers to get away with.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
reflections by diana ross and the supremes, guys. Zoomerang96 Just the Bang and the Clatter 8 11-10-2008 03:29 PM
Sexual Dreams about a co worker dazzlingamy Zoo Confessionals 17 10-29-2007 01:10 PM
Mocean worker - Bono Collaboration??? adriansr_martin Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 2 12-08-2005 12:43 AM
Interview with a morgue worker in Iraq. MissVelvetDress_75 Free Your Mind Archive 10 08-28-2005 01:33 PM
Dutch aid worker freed in Russia Popmartijn Free Your Mind Archive 11 04-13-2004 03:40 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com