Posted on 03/31/2005 3:07:44 AM PST by infocats
WASHINGTON, March 30 - Workers who sue their employers for age discrimination need not prove that the discrimination was intentional, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
Adopting a pro-worker interpretation of the federal law that prohibits age discrimination in employment, the 5-to-3 decision held that employees can prevail by showing that a policy has a discriminatory impact on older workers, regardless of the employer's motivation.
The decision removed the requirement, imposed by a number of lower federal courts, that employees produce the equivalent of a smoking gun in order to win an age discrimination suit. Since discrimination on the job is often subtle, and proof of motivation often elusive, the need to demonstrate intentional discrimination has led to the dismissal of many lawsuits before trial.
But the Supreme Court's decision, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, did not leave employers defenseless. They will be able to defend themselves by proving that a challenged policy was based on "reasonable factors other than age."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Employers are already leary of hiring people in their late 40s and 50s. This will not help since it provides more another reason not to hire in the first place (threat of a lawsuit).
It seems to depend upon the employer.
"ABSTRACT - Growing number of companies, after years of encouraging workers to take early retirement as way to cut jobs, are hunting for older workers because they have lower turnover rates and, in many cases, better work performance; some are recruiting at senior centers, while others send company brochures to churches and libraries and post their attractions on Web sites; AARP, advocacy group for older people, has put on its Web site links to employers recruiting older workers with offers of health benefits, training and flexible work schedules; graph of rising percentage of older Americans in work force; photos (M)
The jobs mentioned are NOT skilled labor. What this basically refers to the fact that an elderly worker is more dependable then a teenager.
I think I get it now. Don't hire baby boomers, you may get a lawsuit. Baby boomers, "Help government, we can't get work. Can you lower our retirement age? We've been discrimated, no will hire us, those evil corporations!" Socialism now!
Just what this country needs: another excuse to sue.
Adding yet another arrow to the quiver of arbitrary judicial power.
I disagree with the assessment that this is an example of a judicial problem.
The law is not clear, but the court has chosen a reasonable interpretation of the law as written. This isn't a constitutional issue.
If congress thinks the court has given too much power to the employees, they can simply change the law.
I'm not trying to discuss the merits of an underlying suit, or what specifically I think the law should say. But if you want to pass a law that says that a person's age should be irrelevant to hiring and firing, it seems reasonable that the law would be in force regardless of the "intent" of the employer.
If I were expressing my OWN opinion of such a law, I would say at least that punitive damages should be restricted to cases where the employer egregiously and purposely discriminated; but simple restitution for actual damages should be based on the result of the company's action, not what they intended.
I didn't say this was a Constitutional issue. Congress isn't immune from writing bad law - far from it. I'm just pointing out that the result is yet another ambiguous requirement that can be arbitrarily enforced on the whim of a judge, and thus constitutes yet another club in the arsenal of the judiciary to use against citizens and companies.
One would think that the 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" would mean that age discrimination laws can't be restricted to a specific set of ages - why couldn't someone be discriminated against for being too young, as well as being too old?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.