Supreme Court: Age bias need not be deliberate

[davidinalameda]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/30/scotus.age.ap/index.html

The Supreme Court made it easier Wednesday for any worker over 40 to allege age discrimination, ruling that employers can be held liable even if they never intended any harm.

About 75 million people -- roughly half the nation's work force -- are covered by the decision. However, the ruling makes it clear that older workers will have a high threshold to prove their claims.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that in some cases employers are within their rights to treat workers differently because of age.

[happyslug]

1. Here is the Actual Decision:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/30mar20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1160.pdf

[SemperEadem]

2. no change, really.

"Age ... not uncommonly has relevance to an individual's capacity to engage in certain types of employment," wrote Stevens, who at 84 is the court's oldest member."

As we all cast our eyes at Stevens and the rest of the justices and say "what up?" about their age.

[Robert Oak]

3. well, it's a better decision than most

in terms of workers rights which have gotten decimated...
age discrimination is rampant in high tech simply to reduce costs.

Anyone over 35 (if you can believe that...gives you a career shelf
life of 10 years) is targeted.

You should see the EEOC rulings on sex discrimination...
it's horrendous...they constantly rule against the person
when the evidence is incredible, kind of a catch-22 rule, joke
law.

[Career Prole]

4. Court Broadens Scope of Age-Discrimination Protections

WASHINGTON, March 30 - The Supreme Court ruled today that older workers can, in some circumstances, recover damages from their employers for harm caused by age discrimination even if the harm was not deliberate.

The court, ruling 5 to 3 in a case closely watched by business interests, held that the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act does allow such lawsuits. But the court also made clear that the estimated 75 million people covered by the law - workers over age 40 - must clear a high threshold of evidence to prevail.

Justice John Paul Stevens and the four other justices who joined him in the main thrust of today's ruling alluded to earlier Supreme Court findings that good faith by employers "does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/politics/30cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1112245200&en=896155538370a208&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Can't talk about raising the retirement age without getting tougher on age discrimination, right?

[Moderator]

5. kick to combine

[Judi Lynn]

6. Supreme Court expands older workers' protection

March 31, 2005, 1:41AM

Supreme Court expands older workers' protection
It isn't necessary to prove intent in age discrimination suits, ruling says
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
New York Times

WASHINGTON - 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 5-3 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 growing number of lower federal courts, that employees produce evidence of discriminatory intent in order to win an age discrimination suit.

Because discrimination on the job is often subtle, and proof of motivation highly elusive, the need to demonstrate intentional discrimination has led to the dismissal of many lawsuits before trial.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3110410
(Free registration is required)

[truthisfreedom]

7. yay!

8^)

the supremes suprise me.

[scarletlib]

8. wow I'm shocked

The supremes actually ruled for the ordinary guy and against business.

[rodeodance]

9. adopted a pro-worker interpretation--yes WHOW

[patricia92243]

10. At my work we have to sign a paper saying any disputes-including age discr

discrimination-will be settled by an arbitrator. Which I have always assumed it would be THEIR arbitrators, so a person basically can do nothing.

The paper says a person does not have to sign it in order to have a job with this company, but I'd like to see someone be employed by them that had not signed.

[fasttense]

11. That can easily be challenged in court

First is it a binding arbitration or not? Even if it is binding, you can't give up your rights just by agreeing to work within their system.

[patricia92243]

12. Yes, It is binding. I don't know about the rest of it

[cap]

13. a good lawyer can toss it out

you cant be forced to give up your right to trial. Just because you signed doesnt mean binding arbitration can be mandated.