Total Articles: 14
Inconsistent Treatment of Older Worker May Lead to Legal Liability
On September 26, 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment allowing a 59 year old employee’s claim of age discrimination to go to a jury, based largely on evidence that younger employees – even those over 40 years old – had been disciplined differently than she was.
Court "Deletes" Worker's Age Bias Claim
A federal appellate court recently ruled that an employee whose job functions were replaced by a computer program had not been the victim of age discrimination. According to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, an employee who acted as an intermediary in the product design process was not replaced by the younger employee who oversaw the new streamlined system. Gortemoller v. International Furniture Marketing, Inc., No. 10-15689, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (July 20, 2011).
Termination for Obsolete Skill Set Does Not Constitute Age Discrimination.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court Raises Employee Burden In Age Bias Cases.
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.
New United States Supreme Court Decision Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. Helps Employers In ADEA Cases.
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.
Supreme Court Rejects "Mixed Motive" Age Discrimination Claims.
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.
Supreme Court Rejects "Mixed Motive" Age Discrimination Claims.
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.
Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly ADEA Ruling.
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.
Supreme Court Hands Employers Victory In Age Discrimination Case.
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.
Justices Place Burden Of Proof On Employers.
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.
Employer May Use Subjective Criteria to Defeat Claim of Pretext in ADEA Case.
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.
Supreme Court Places Greater Burden on Employers Defending Age Claims.
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.
Court Rules in Favor of Employer on Corporate Pilots’ Age Discrimination Claims.
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.
Nashville Employee's Age Bias Claim Fails (pdf).
Court finds workers presented only scant evidence of bias.
