|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 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 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 Nashville Employee's Age Bias Claim Fails (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - February 01, 2007 Court finds workers presented only scant evidence of bias.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Affirmative Action : An Overview of Your Obligations
Jackson
August 25, 2008 Baker DonelsonPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Online
August 26, 2008 Shaw ValenzaManaging Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire Woods |
|
| ||
|
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