Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Reach of Age Bias Law
Reuters ^ | 9/30/05 | James Vicini

Posted on 03/30/2005 10:42:10 AM PST by Crackingham

Workers 40 or older can sue their employers for practices that favor younger workers even if there was no intentional bias, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an important age discrimination case.

The decision upheld the reach of the 1967 federal law that bars discrimination based on age and covers an estimated 75 million workers 40 or older, who account for about half the U.S. civilian labor force.

By a 5-3 vote, the justices ruled the law did cover policies that have a "disparate impact" on older workers, even if the employer was not motivated by intentional discrimination.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the main opinion that a federal appeals court was wrong to hold that such claims never could be brought under the law.

Business groups had warned they could face expensive lawsuits in arguing for a narrow interpretation of the age bias law while AARP, the advocacy group for those 50 or older, had supported allowing workers to sue for such claims.

"This is a major boost for the fight to eliminate age discrimination in the workplace," said Laurie McCann, a senior attorney for AARP, in calling the high court's decision "enormously significant."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agediscrimination; bigbrother; employmentatwill; freedomofcontract; libertarians; ruling; scotus; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2005 10:42:11 AM PST by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Just wait till they see what kind of expensive lawsuits they encounter if the gay activists ever succeed at getting "sexual orientation" anti-discrimination laws in place.


2 posted on 03/30/2005 10:49:28 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
WAIT....

...at 34 I'm considered "older"? I'm only SIX years away from being a "protected class"? *sigh* Where have all the years gone?

3 posted on 03/30/2005 10:50:32 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Don't feel so bad, you will soon qualify for senior's discounts!


4 posted on 03/30/2005 10:53:08 AM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

We might as well do away with the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Judiciary interprets, makes, and enforces the laws with impunity.


5 posted on 03/30/2005 10:55:16 AM PST by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I can smell the golden parachutes now.


6 posted on 03/30/2005 10:56:02 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

So if I have this right, it doesn't matter that a company didn't intend discrimination...people can still sue over discrimination? Wha?


7 posted on 03/30/2005 10:58:18 AM PST by Electrowoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Electrowoman

Believe it or not, Scalia agrees with this decision but O'Connon does not.


8 posted on 03/30/2005 11:00:48 AM PST by Rumierules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rumierules

O'Connon = O'Connor


9 posted on 03/30/2005 11:01:15 AM PST by Rumierules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Electrowoman

Don't worry, you can't be fired because of your age.

BUT, you CAN be "removed from your misery", in a painless, beautiful manner. Just head for Florida. . .


10 posted on 03/30/2005 11:01:41 AM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I know a number of older, competent people, who would were FAR below the "golden parachute" level, who have been "engineered" out of the work place (by those WITH "golden parachutes") primarily because they were compensated at a higher rate than a younger replacement would be.

Is that fair? That's debatable, but that's business...and no one on the receiving end of that equation likes it.


11 posted on 03/30/2005 11:02:04 AM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
I thought 60 was the new 40, anyway...
12 posted on 03/30/2005 11:03:42 AM PST by Vortex (Garbage in, Garbage Out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Read the opinions of the Court. This is out of control judicial activism. The court ruled that the specific case, brought by some older police officers, had no validity. But it ruled that, in general, you did not have to prove intent to be biased. The 9 mullahs should only have said whether the case was valid or not. Instead, they went beyond that to make up a new law.


13 posted on 03/30/2005 11:06:14 AM PST by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; biblewonk
Workers 40 or older can sue their employers for practices that favor younger workers even if there was no intentional bias

COOL! Now, back to our regularly scheduled FReeping ...

14 posted on 03/30/2005 11:09:29 AM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ
We might as well do away with the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Judiciary interprets, makes, and enforces the laws with impunity.

Congress can amend the statute to require proof of deliberate intent, i.e. change the result of the case. Whether it will have the political courage to do so is an entirely separate question. Don't bet the ranch.

15 posted on 03/30/2005 11:11:40 AM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I'm filing a race-based class action against the NBA. Their hiring policies obvious have a "disparate impact" on white guys who can't jump.


16 posted on 03/30/2005 11:11:48 AM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Have The Supremes ruled yet that the rest of the world owes us a living ?
17 posted on 03/30/2005 11:12:15 AM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Electrowoman

Suppose that you worked in an office for, say, a company that wanted to project a youthful image, so all the "older" workers were sequestered in the back of the building, where visitors wouldn't see them.

But the company doesn't MEAN to discriminate!

So when promotion and raise time comes around, who does the boss think of first?
The ones he sees first?

Does this sound fair to you? If so, I think there's probably a nice Mid Eastern country where you'd be every happy.


18 posted on 03/30/2005 11:15:30 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

THAT will be their next decision!!!

Boy I can't wait!!!/s


19 posted on 03/30/2005 11:16:21 AM PST by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
THAT will be their next decision!!! Boy I can't wait!!!/s

They will reinstitute the Dred Scott ruling and apply it retroactively.

20 posted on 03/30/2005 11:17:41 AM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson