Congress Looks To Fix Age Discrimination Decision

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/congress-looks-to-fix-age-discrimination-decision/

It's no secret that the Great Recession has hit older workers especially hard, and now Congress may be taking action to help workers who have been the victim of age discrimination have their day in court by taking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it harder for older workers to prove their claims.

In a hearing on Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions heard from Jack Gross, the plaintiff in Gross v. FBL Financial Services case. He was among a group of employees, almost all who were 50 years old or older, who were demoted. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court changed the standard of proof for workers like Gross who sued their employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Under the Court's decision a worker must now prove that the employer would not have taken a certain action, like a demotion, "but for" the worker's age, even in the face of evidence that age was a factor in the decision. The Gross decision is often compared to the famous gender discrimination decision Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co as decisions that illustrate a growingly conservative Court's outward hostility to discrimination claims.

Both the House and the Senate have introduced legislation that would override the Supreme Court's interpretation of ADEA. Under the proposed legislation, a plaintiff would have to show simply that an "impermissible factor" such as age was a "motivating factor" in the employer's action. If passed, the legislation would put the plaintiff's burden in an ADEA claim more squarely in line with the rest of the employment discrimination statutes.

The point in the restoration language is to reinforce to employers that they may not use impermissible factors, such as age, gender, and race in making employment decisions. That's the ultimate remedial purpose of anti-discrimination laws--not to create an undue advantage to any group, but to make sure that only purely objective standards are used in workplace evaluations.


More at the link ---

[Greyhound]

1. K&R.

[Warpy]

2. The best thing they could do to eliminate age bias is extend Medicare

downward to the age of 55, either on a sliding scale buy in for employed workers or an option to company insurance programs for older workers. Since it's likely to be a cheaper insurance option than private insurance, it would make older, experienced workers look much more attractive overnight.

Once again, Congress is debating which stick to use when a carrot would have been cheaper and more effective.

[truedelphi]

3. Very much agree. Having been told to my face that a certain

company would not hire me due to no longer being on spouse's insurance, and that at my age, if they employed me, then their rates would be astronomical, I totally agree.

And had I a fancy phone camera on me when told this, I would have had my day in court. But without any proof, it would have just been, she said she said.