Nexsen Pruet • October 12, 2017
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 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. During the past fifty years, the ADEA has been amended several times, including in 1978, 1986, 1990 and 1996, 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the requirements for proving a violation, and, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), outdated assumptions about age and work persist as stereotypes and barriers to the employment of older workers. This article looks back at some of the significant changes to the ADEA and legal decisions interpreting the law since its enactment.
FordHarrison LLP • August 06, 2017
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.
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.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 27, 2017
A federal court in Michigan dismissed the age discrimination claim of a licensed medical marijuana caregiver who was terminated in connection with an investigation into drug activity at work. Henry v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., LLC, No. 15-cv-10755 (E.D. Mich. April 18, 2017).
Ogletree Deakins • March 09, 2017
On March 1, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision affirming summary judgment in an age discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Although the case, Nash v. Optomec, Inc., did not create new law, the appellate court reinforced many important principles that apply not only to age discrimination cases but also other types of discrimination cases. The prevailing party in the case was represented by Andy Tanick and David McKinney of Ogletree Deakins’ Minneapolis office.
Ogletree Deakins • February 21, 2017
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, recently found that punitive and compensatory damages are not available for retaliation claims brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
Ogletree Deakins • February 21, 2017
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently created a circuit split when it disagreed with prior decisions from the Second, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, No. 15-3435 (January 10, 2017), the Third Circuit held that “subgroup” disparate impact claims are cognizable under the ADEA.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 14, 2017
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently became the first appellate court to find that so-called “subgroup” disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination against individuals age 40 and older.
Ogletree Deakins • November 10, 2016
Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling that affects whether job applicants may bring disparate impact claims in discrimination lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (October 5, 2016), the court concluded that “the whole text of the Act makes clear that an applicant for employment cannot sue an employer for disparate impact because the applicant has no ‘status as an employee.’”
XpertHR • October 17, 2016
In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has held in Villarreal v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company that the disparate-impact provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only covers discrimination against employees, not job applicants.