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

ADEA Claims Supposedly Just Got Harder For Some Job Applicants: But Have They Really Lost All Avenues For Litigation?

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), does not protect disparate impact claims for job applicants. The ADEA generally provides protections from age discrimination for individuals 40 years or older. The Seventh Circuit covers the federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

SHRM Reaffirms Second Chance Employment, Hiring Older Workers As 2019 Priorities

Speaking at the Society for Human Resource Management's Employment Law and Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. discussed the US labor shortage and what he sees as two key untapped talent markets:

Creative Ways to Attract and Retain Older Workers

Make no mistake, in order to get ahead of the game, an employer today must plan for an aging workforce and make a strong effort to attract and retain older workers.

Older Applicants Cannot Utilize ADEA to Challenge Neutral Hiring Criteria, Seventh Circuit Rules

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit non-employees to bring claims under a disparate impact theory, the Seventh Circuit has ruled. Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019). Accordingly, in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, job applicants will not be able to challenge hiring decisions that are neutral, but which disproportionately exclude job applicants over 40.

Seventh Circuit Rules Age Bias Protections Don’t Extend to Prospective Employees For Disparate Impact Claims

A recent federal court decision opened the door for employers to recruit and hire candidates who are either recent graduates or have limited work experience without risking liability for certain claims of age discrimination.

Age Bias Protections Restricted for Job Applicants, 7th Circuit Rules

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not extend to outside job applicants who claim they have been victimized by disparate impact discrimination, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has held.

Seventh Circuit Limits Job Applicants' Age Discrimination Claims

Executive Summary: A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, recently ruled 8-4 that job applicants may not bring claims for unintentional age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In rejecting plaintiff Dale Kleber’s claim, the court chiefly relied on the text of the statute, but also supported its position by examining the overall structure of the ADEA. See Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019).

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).
tempobet tipobet giriş