join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Supreme Court: Small Public Employers Now Subject To ADEA

In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court issued its first ruling of the new term today and delivered a blow to small public-sector employers fending off age discrimination lawsuits. The Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to all states and political subdivisions regardless of the number of people the public entity employs. Today’s ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido has implications for small public employers—who must now comply with the ADEA—but also raises the serious specter for individual liability under the ADEA for all employers.

Supreme Court: Age Discrimination in Employment Act Applies to All State, Local Government Employers

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to state and local government employers, regardless of their size, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous (8-0) seven-page decision. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587 (Nov. 6, 2018).

SCOTUS Rules: ADEA Applies Even to Small Political Subdivisions

On November 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to all states and political subdivisions—regardless of their size. In an opinion that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored—which was unanimous save for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who did not take part in the decision—the Court reasoned that a 1974 amendment to the ADEA extended its reach to public-sector employers by adding state and local governments to the definition of “employer.” However, this extension to public-sector employers did not include the size requirement that applies to other covered employers under the ADEA—namely, employers defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees” Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587, Supreme Court of the United States (November 6, 2018).

Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case

Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions?

Seventh Circuit Opines on "Reasonable Factor Other Than Age" Defense to ADEA Claim Stemming from Benefit Plan Elimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed whether a company’s liquidation plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because it caused a disparate impact on older workers. O’Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. No. 17-2956 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2018). The Seventh Circuit held that although the liquidation plan did statistically disfavor older workers, it did not violate the ADEA because the liquidation plan was designed to promote legitimate business purposes, namely cost-cutting measures and voluntary retirement incentives.

Is Age Discrimination Coming Out of the Shadows?

Recently there have been some emerging media reports about older workers feeling discriminated against, both during the hiring process and in some high profile layoffs/reorganizations (e.g. IBM) where older workers are being shown the door in favor of younger colleagues who command lower salaries.

Beware of Age Discrimination When Recruiting in the Facebook Age

Employers are increasingly using social media as a recruiting tool to reach job candidates. However, while platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn may be a good way to find potential new superstar employees, employers need to be careful to avoid age discrimination claims, as several large employers recently learned.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Looking Back at the Last Fifty Years

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),[1] which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Congress created the legislation in an effort to promote the employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age and to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment.[2] During the past fifty years, the ADEA has been amended several times, including in 1978, 1986, 1990 and 1996,[3] thereby expanding the scope of the law and the protection afforded older workers. While the overall effect of the amendments has been to expand the law, court decisions have tightened the requirements for proving a violation, and, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), outdated assumptions about age and work persist as stereotypes and barriers to the employment of older workers.[4] This article looks back at some of the significant changes to the ADEA and legal decisions interpreting the law since its enactment.

Seventh Circuit Holds Distressed County Did Not Violate ADEA When It Terminated Rehired Retirees to Preserve Supplemental Health Insurance Coverage and Avoid Additional Costs

Executive Summary: On July 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Carson v. Lake County, Indiana affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer on the plaintiffs’ Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims, finding that they were not terminated because of their age, but because the employer needed to preserve supplemental insurance coverage for retirees and avoid incurring additional costs.

EEOC Discusses Age Discrimination Issues at New York Seminar, Commission Meeting

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently hosting the New York District Technical Assistance Program Seminar (TAPS), which has emphasized federal age discrimination protections in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In addition, the EEOC will hold a Commission meeting next week on age discrimination and the challenges it poses for the future.