|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Article Index » age discrimination: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Employer May Use Subjective Criteria to Defeat Claim of Pretext in ADEA Case.Ogletree Deakins - July 01, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Rules that Imputing Years of Service for Disabled Employee Does Not Discriminate Against Older Workers.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - June 27, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Finds State Disability Pension Plan does not Violate ADEA.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 26, 2008 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. Report Link Proving Age Discrimination Gets a Little Easier.McGuire Woods LLP - June 26, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Finds That Kentucky Disability Pension Does Not Violate ADEA.McGuire Woods LLP - June 26, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Says Employers Have Burden to Prove the ADEA Defense that 'Reasonable Factor Other Than Age' Caused Disparate Impact.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - June 26, 2008 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. Report Link High Court Rules in Several Key Cases Affecting Employers.Ogletree Deakins - June 25, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Charts New Course in Pension Plan Case Interpreting ADEA.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 24, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Rules Employers Bear Burden of Proving Reasonableness of Employment Policies and Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2008 Handing down another decision this term interpreting the nation’s age discrimination law, the Supreme Court has ruled that an employer must not only produce evidence of, but also bear the burden of proving, a “reasonable factor other than age” for its employment policy or action which has a disparate impact on workers over the age of 40, in order to establish its freedom from unlawful bias. Report Link Supreme Court Rules Kentucky Disability Retirement Plan Does Not Violate ADEA.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2008 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”).
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds