join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 3

Mandatory Retirement of Partners (pdf).

There is no question but that “[w]ith so many baby boomers reaching traditional retirement age, retirement policies are probably one of the biggest issues facing law firms today.”1 The same is true of partnerships beyond law firms such as the accounting and medical firms that are included in the more than 2 million businesses that are organized as partnerships in the United States.2 The significance of the partnership business form is that mandatory retirement of partners based on age is permissible because, as employers, partners do not fall within the coverage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (the “ADEA”)3 or, for that matter, the other antidiscrimination laws. However, as noted in Caruso v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., “if the partner’s or principal’s duties closely resemble those of a salaried employee, with only limited decision-making responsibilities, his title alone will not defeat an ADEA claim.”4

Supreme Court Finds No Discrimination In Controversial State Retirement System Plan.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth of Kentucky's disability plan, which was not made available to persons already eligible for normal retirement benefits by virtue of their years of service (or age, plus years of service), was not discriminatory on its face, and did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court emphasized that it was dealing with the "quite special case" of different treatment based on pension status where pension status itself turns on age, noting that the ADEA permits an employer to condition pension eligibility upon age. The Court adopted the rule that, where an employer adopts a pension plan that includes age as a factor, and then treats employees differently based on pension status, the employee must come forward with evidence that the differential treatment was "actually motivated" by age, not pension status.

FAA to Raise Pilots' Mandatory Retirement Age (pdf).

Employer May Need to Revisit Their Internal Policies.

Ogletree Deakins | California | The Opportunities and Obligations of Venture Capital and Private Equity in the #MeToo Environment (February 01, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Glimmers of Hope? Pair of Recent PAGA Cases Provide Rare Procedural Victories for California Employers (January 31, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | California’s Salary History Ban: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (January 23, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | The ICEman Cometh? Recent War of Words Puts California Employers in the Crosshairs of National Immigration Debate (January 22, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Long-Awaited Housekeeper Injury Prevention Regulations (January 24, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | DLSE Publishes Voluntary Template for Required Employer AB 450 Notice (February 11, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Hotel Housekeeping Injury Standard – Likely to Go Into Effect Later This Year (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | As Marijuana Shops Thrive, California Employers Revisit Drug Policies (January 18, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | California Labor Department Releases Form for Employers Responding to Immigration Agency Inspection (February 12, 2018)