Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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."
i just found justice scalia under my mom's bed and he was missing his black robe... talk about judicial activism of the worst kind...
all those nights i thought mom was watching reruns of laugh in when i overheard someone singing, "here comes the judge, here comes the judge".
teeman
How does it favor one group or the other to say you can't dicriminate in hiring based on race, sex, or religion?
The devil is in the details. You have to look at what Equal Opportunity laws and policies actually say. Historically they lead to quotas for women, minorities and anyone else that the liberal establishment declares to be "disadvantaged". I happen to believe that this is a bad thing. Just my $.02 on the subject.
Equal Opportunity in education means the same thing. Admit someone with lesser qualifications to a school because they are "disadvantaged" while rejecting others who have superior academic qualifications. This is all done under the guise of "Equal Opportunity". What it really means is "Unequal Opportunity and Favoritism for the Members of Our Group". No thanks.
Sounds like affirmative action not equal employement opportunity to me. You are mixing apples and oranges.
Not allowing discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religion is a good thing in my opinion and a far cry from affirmative action.
I'm sorry to hear that your husband was canned. I would give you the 'get a job' harassment that the rest of the board gives, but I've been there. All I can say is that you can't be too ready to jump ship in today's business world, that loyalty doesn't mean a damn thing to most big employers. And I hope your husband finds work.
That said, if he's getting positive responses until he walks in the door or until he indicates his age somehow, have him try talking to a lawyer about it. Suing is the new national pasttime.
Now, as to your lecturing "your time will come" comment, I promise you, I know my time WILL come--and when it does, a silvery hell's comin' with me. I will be buying a cane, joining the Gray Panthers, talking about how things were better back in Reagan's day, yapping about getting my AARP discount, and badgering young whippersnappers like you would not believe. And until then, I will be just as pissed as every other young person who has dealt with "gimme seniors" since birth. So you can lay off the "your time will come," because I've been waiting for it since I was old enough to wonder why seniors got discounts when they owned nicer houses and drove better cars than my folks.
You want age discrimination? Check your bill at Denny's. Check the bill the young couple at the next table is paying. Check your husband's old paychecks, and see what happens when he hits 62--he'll have Social Security to help out. I bet if you could compare my experience and his at the same ages, you'd see a substantial difference in our paycheck sizes due to tax bite and a real difference in when we can afford to retire as a result. That's the ultimate in age discrimination, Grandma, and I guaran-damn-tee you that if you think YOU have suffered ANY substantial age discrimination in comparison, even though your generation has paid far LOWER taxes than you should have given the government services you've benefitted from, and my generation will be paying for the Boomer treasury raiding long after you're gone, well, you are eagerly going to be one of those gimme seniors I'm so tired of.
Xer Ping
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Actually, child bearing females are more expensive to a company than mature women.
However, they can get them to work so cheaply that it kinda evens out.
Me? I'd rather have the cash.
How would they know how old he is over the phone?
How would they know how old he is over the phone?
How would they know how old he is over the phone?
How would they know how old he is over the phone?
What the hell? I just clicked it once I swear!
The worst group to be is the same old one - X. We had crap career paths for the first 10 - 15 years of our working lives. That of course was due to the mass of Boomers ahead of us, carving out their territories and holding onto them, not to mention their overall chidishness and chaotic personal lives (one needs to make more money when they have multiple alimony payments and expensive habits). Then, right when things should have started getting better, extreme afirmative action, and the H1B issue, suddenly started to erode us from behind. My lone consolation is that all those lean years between when I came of age and my mid 30s made me stoic, miserly and street smart. I'll essentially never make the same mistakes the Boomers made (and continue to make) and therefore need less in order to live comfortably.
Good luck if you decide to pursue it. I know several who have done so successfully.
Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did. Sure you did.
: )
RE: avoiding Boomer mistakes, I didn't avoid `em. I just made them earlier. But that was useful. Better to be broke early than broke late. And better to be cynical than foolishly idealistic.
This is far more convoluted than you make it out to be.
JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER, concluded in Part III that the ADEA’s text, the RFOA provision, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations all support the conclusion that a disparate-impact theory is cognizable under the ADEA. Pp. 4–11.
JUSTICE SCALIA concluded that the reasoning in Part III of JUSTICE STEVENS’ opinion is a basis for deferring, pursuant to Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, to the EEOC’s reasonable view that the ADEA authorizes dispa-rate-impact claims. Pp. 1–5.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, joined by JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE THOMAS, concluded that the judgment should be affirmed on the ground that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the ADEA. Pp. 1–22.
Here's the opinion Scalia penned.
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment of the Court, and join all except Part III of its opinion. As to that Part, I agree with all of the Court’s reasoning, but would find it a basis, not for independent determination of the disparate-impact question, but for deferral to the reasonable views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) pursuant to (cite omitted--but he DISSENTED in those cites).
This is an absolutely classic case for deference to agency interpretation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., confers upon the EEOC authority to issue “such rules and regulations as it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out the” ADEA. §628. Pursuant to this authority, the EEOC promulgated, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, see 46 Fed. Reg. 47724, 47727 (1981), a regulation that reads as follows:
“When an employment practice, including a test, isclaimed as a basis for different treatment of employees or applicants for employment on the grounds that it is a ‘factor other than’ age, and such a practice has an adverse impact on individuals within the protected age group, it can only be justified as a business necessity.” 29 CFR §1625.7(d) (2004).
The statement of the EEOC which accompanied publication of the agency’s final interpretation of the ADEA said the following regarding this regulation: “Paragraph (d) of §1625.7 has been rewritten to make it clear that employment criteria that are age-neutral on their face but which nevertheless have a disparate impact on members of the protected age group must be justified as a business necessity. (cites omitted). The regulation affirmed,moreover, what had been the longstanding position of the Department of Labor, the agency that previously administered the ADEA, see ante, at 10; 29 CFR §860.103(f)(1)(i) (1970). And finally, the Commission has appeared in numerous cases in the lower courts, both as a party and as amicus curiae, to defend the position that the ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims.1 Even under the unduly constrained standards of agency deference recited in United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218 (2001), the EEOC’s reasonable view that the ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims is deserving of deference.
---
Scalia, following precedent, has good reason to rule where he does. O'Connor and her fans are blasting precedent. Having not read the precedent, I don't know which to agree with, but I tend to follow Scalia and doubt Thomas (pun intended).
As a practical matter, this decision won't make much difference. I defend employers in employment litigation. Disparate impact cases (unintentional discrimination cases) are very rare even though they have been permitted with respect to sex and race for years.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
LOL You should have seen my face the first time a store clerk asked me if I had one of their senior citizens discount cards. I was 50 and got really insulted at the time.
I'm sure the skin heads at the Aryan Nation are in complete agreement with you.
I can imagine you telling an older woman that she is being fired because you don't want some old wrinkled up nigger nanny with kinky hair working for you. That's real freedom alright. What you advocate is pure plain and simple bigotry under the guise of some form of freedom as a business owner.
Would you feel justified in firing a Jew because you don't like a certain facial feature.
Your time ended with the pre-civil rights south, thank God.
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.