http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/2 Employment law articles discussing age discrimination issues under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:11:14 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8546 Article: 8546 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Lawmakers in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have introduced legislation to overturn a Supreme Court decision that has been criticized by politicians and advocacy groups as making it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on age discrimination claims. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8484 Article: 8484 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employers may be held liable for discriminatory employment decisions made by their independent contractors, the federal appeals court in New York has held. Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., No. 07-4074-cv (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2009). The employer’s liability would turn on whether the contractor was acting as the employer’s agent, with direct or apparent authority, the Court said. Since the facts are disputed in this case, the Court vacated summary judgment for the defendant-employer and remanded the case to the district court. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8468 Article: 8468 Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual over the age of 40, and specifically includes a prohibition against failing to hiring someone based on his or her age. The 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out the expansive nature of that prohibition by holding that an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties - including an independent contractor who is authorized by the employer to make hiring decisions on its behalf. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8420 Article: 8420 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) We recently reported on the EEOC's guidance concerning waivers of employment law claims, particularly the release of age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA). See "New EEOC Guidance for Employees (That's Right – Employees!" Days later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Neely v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 6th Cir., No. 07-4281, unpublished opinion 7/31/09, which further explored the complexities of securing a valid age discrimination release under these two laws. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8375 Article: 8375 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee alleging a disparate treatment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must prove that age was the "but for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that even where the employee has produced evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action without regard to age. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8370 Article: 8370 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from treating employees who are 40 or older adversely on the basis of their age. Recently, however, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s “obsolete skill set” which caused him to be of “declining value” to the company was sufficient basis to support an that individual’s termination during a reduction in force (RIF), and found that the termination did not constitute age discrimination. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8247 Article: 8247 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a surprising decision, the Supreme Court held, 5-to-4, that federal age discrimination claimants must prove that their age was the "but for" cause of the challenged employment decision (such as failure to promote, demotion or termination). Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (June 18, 2009). This means that ADEA plaintiffs bringing disparate treatment claims generally will have a more difficult burden of proof as compared to Title VII plaintiffs. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8234 Article: 8234 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a key victory for employers, the United States Supreme Court held on June 18, 2009, that a plaintiff bringing an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“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. This ruling also establishes that the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one of the motivating factors in that decision. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8220 Article: 8220 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441 (June 18, 2009) has held that the burden-shifting analysis that is available in so-called mixed-motives cases under Title VII does not apply to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Rather, the Court held that a plaintiff bringing a disparate treatment claim under the ADEA bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. In other words, even if there is some evidence that age was a factor in the challenged employment decision, the plaintiff cannot prevail unless he or she can prove that, but for his or her age, the employer would not have taken the challenged action. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=8216 Article: 8216 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court held on June 18, 2009, that plaintiffs alleging intentional age discrimination must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Court, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Thomas, clarified that plaintiffs asserting claims of disparate treatment under the ADEA may not prevail based upon proof that age was merely a motivating or substantial factor behind the employment action. Based upon material differences between the text of the ADEA and Title VII, the Court declined Gross’ request to extend the lesser burden of persuasion for alleged mixed-motive claims under Title VII to claims of age discrimination.