http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/2 Employment law articles discussing age discrimination issues under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act. Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:07:08 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7071 Article: 7071 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits an employer from failing to hire or promote an individual who is at least 40 years old because of that individual’s age. Once the individual establishes a prima facie case of discrimination – by showing that she was in the protected age group; that she was otherwise qualified for the position; and that a younger person was hired to fill the position – a legal presumption arises that the employer unlawfully discriminated against that individual. The burden then shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory reason for the company’s failure to hire. The employee can demonstrate that the proffered reason was a “pretext” for discrimination by presenting evidence indicating that age was a determinative factor in the adverse employment decision. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7064 Article: 7064 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a 5-4 split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's state retirement plan did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") by increasing the years of service for employees who become disabled before they are eligible for normal retirement benefits. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7060 Article: 7060 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The United States Supreme Court held last week that employers must affirmatively prove the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) "reasonable factor other than age" (RFOA) defense in disparate impact cases. Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., __ U.S. __, Slip. Op. (June 19, 2008). The RFOA defense provides that "[i]t shall not be unlawful for an employer … to take any action otherwise prohibited under [the ADEA's operative anti-discrimination subsections] where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). After Meacham, once plaintiffs isolate and identify a specific employment practice that is alleged to cause a statistically significant disparate impact on older workers, the employer must prove, not just articulate, the reasonableness of a non-age factor. For employers, Meacham will make defending ADEA disparate impact claims more difficult, although how much more difficult is unclear. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7056 Article: 7056 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that Kentucky’s disability pension arrangements for disabled police and firefighters do not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), despite providing greater benefits to employees who become disabled at younger ages. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7055 Article: 7055 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in a 7-1 ruling that an employer bears the burden of production and persuasion in a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) when raising “reasonable factors other than age” as an affirmative defense. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7054 Article: 7054 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that Kentucky’s disability retirement program, which imputes years of service to employees who become disabled before becoming eligible for a regular pension, but does not do so for employees who become disabled after becoming pension eligible, does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). See Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (June 19, 2008). In its five to four decision, the Court rejected the argument of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that such a plan automatically discriminates because of age. The Court found that Kentucky’s plan distinguishes among employees based on pension status, not age. In such cases, a person challenging the plan must present evidence that the different treatment was “actually motivated” by age, not pension status, which the EEOC failed to do. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7053 Article: 7053 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of important rulings. Two of these cases arise in the labor and employment law arena and are discussed below. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7040 Article: 7040 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In Kentucky Retirement Income Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 06-1037 (June 19, 2008), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to permit Kentucky to increase disabled public safety workers' pensions to the level they would have attained at normal retirement age, even though that meant workers who became disabled after reaching retirement age would not receive any pension increase. In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected the position of the EEOC that the pension design discriminated on account of age unless the state could show an equal-cost justification for the difference in benefits received by two employees with equal pay and service but different ages. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7036 Article: 7036 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On June 19, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 7-1 decision that an employer defending a disparate-impact claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) affirmative defense under the Act. In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the Court observed that a disparate-impact claim assumes that a "non-age factor" was at work. The focus of the RFOA defense is whether that factor was a "reasonable" one for the employer to use. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7034 Article: 7034 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In one of two age discrimination decisions handed down the same day, the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that using age as a potential factor in determining disability retirement benefits does not automatically constitute disparate treatment age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).