|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Termination for Obsolete Skill Set Does Not Constitute Age Discrimination.Ogletree Deakins - August 13, 2009 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. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Raises Employee Burden In Age Bias Cases.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - July 06, 2009 On June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant employment law decision that will make it more difficult for an employee to prove a case of intentional discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as compared to the burden required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Report Link ADEA Disparate-Treatment Plaintiffs Must Prove Age Was the But-For Cause of the Challenged Employment Action.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - July 01, 2009 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. Report Link New United States Supreme Court Decision Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. Helps Employers In ADEA Cases.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - June 26, 2009 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. Report Link Supreme Court Decides that Title VII Mixed-Motives Analysis Does Not Apply to Age Discrimination Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 24, 2009 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. Report Link Supreme Court Rejects "Mixed Motive" Age Discrimination Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 23, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (June 18, 2009), a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse employment action – i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individual's age. Report Link Supreme Court Rejects Mixed-Motives Framework for ADEA Claims.Baker Hostetler LLP - June 23, 2009 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. Report Link Supreme Court Rejects "Mixed Motive" Age Discrimination Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 22, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (June 18, 2009), a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse employment action – i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individual's age. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly ADEA Ruling.Ogletree Deakins - June 22, 2009 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. Report Link Supreme Court Places Heavier Burden on Age Discrimination Plaintiffs.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 19, 2009 On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important decision addressing the burden of proof in disparate-treatment cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). The practical effect of the Court's decision is to make it somewhat more difficult for a plaintiff to prove a case of intentional discrimination under the ADEA than under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Report Link Supreme Court Hands Employers Victory In Age Discrimination Case.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 18, 2009 On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not authorize mixed-motive claims of age discrimination. The burden of proof is at all times with the plaintiff to establish that age was a "but for" cause of the adverse employment action. Report Link Justices Place Burden Of Proof On Employers.Ogletree Deakins - August 05, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that if an employer wants to defend an age discrimination claim by asserting that the decision was based on "reasonable factors other than age," the employer has the obligation to prove this to the judge or jury hearing the case. The ruling did not come as a major surprise to most employment lawyers, but is considered to be a victory for workers. Report Link More Age Discrimination Cases on the Horizon? Supreme Court Raises Bar on Employer's Defense in ADEA Cases.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 15, 2008 On June 19, 2008, in a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers defending disparate impact claims under the ADEA, with the defense that the decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA), bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the factors the employer relied upon in making a decision to lay off employees were reasonable. Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (June 19, 2008). The Meacham Court settled a dispute between federal circuits. Previously, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals placed both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on employers. By contrast, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had placed the burden of persuasion on employees to show that the factors relied upon by employers in making a RIF decision were unreasonable. While the Meacham ruling is not seen as a major surprise throughout the business community, one thing is clear: the bar has been raised on employers defending decisions to reduce their workforce under the ADEA. 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 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 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 Employers Bear Burden of Proof in Age Cases.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 23, 2008 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. Report Link Supreme Court Places Greater Burden on Employers Defending Age Claims.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 20, 2008 The Supreme Court held that an employer sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of its explanation for a suspect employment practice. This ruling carries significant adverse consequences for employers, exposing them to greater risk of liability under the ADEA when decisions are made to reorganize or reduce their workforces. Report Link Court Rules in Favor of Employer on Corporate Pilots’ Age Discrimination Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 13, 2008 A federal court in Texas has held that a group of corporate pilots failed to show they were subjected to age discrimination when they were forced to retire at age 60. See EEOC v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (N.D. Tex, April 28, 2008). In ruling for the employer, the court held that the employer’s policy is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court also held that the employer’s reliance on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s age 60 rule is probative of a BFOQ because the work performed by the corporate pilots is congruent with the work performed by commercial pilots in all material ways. Report Link The "Old Man" Can’t Make It Up The Stairs, But Makes It Into Court.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - November 02, 2007 Finding that a supervisor's comments about an employee's age were admissible circumstantial evidence, and that his employer's reduction in force plan was not a "plan" at all, an appeals court has reinstated the claim of a 57 year old employee, who had been let go in a RIF that affected over 90 employees. Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. Report Link Nashville Employee's Age Bias Claim Fails (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - February 01, 2007 Court finds workers presented only scant evidence of bias. Report Link Executives' Careless Remarks Cost Company Big Bucks [PDF File].Jones Walker - November 21, 2003 This recent age discrimination case is a sobering reminder that careless remarks by upper-level management employees can be interpreted as evidence of unlawful bias and could mean big bucks out of your company's pocket.
|
Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
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