Good News
The Supreme Court issued its ruling on an age discrimination case, and once again surprised me by coming out with the right decision for the right reasons. While their ruling turned on a technical procedural issue, that procedural issue is an important one. From today's NY Times:
The Supreme Court ruled for older workers Thursday in a closely watched age discrimination case, placing on employers the burden of proving that a layoff or other action that hurts older workers more than others was based not on age but on some other “reasonable factor.”
The 7-to-1 decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York, which said employees had the burden of disproving an employer’s defense of reasonableness. ...
The age discrimination law provides that an employment action that would be “otherwise prohibited” is lawful if “the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.” The question in the case was what happens once an employer invokes this defense: does the employer have to prove, or do the plaintiffs have to disprove, the existence of the reasonable non-age factors? [Emphasis added]
One of the first things taught at law school is that the party raising a defense has to prove it up. Here, the defendant in the case claimed the defense that "factors other than age" were behind the layoffs. The facts, however, seemed to suggest otherwise:
In the case on Thursday, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505, the employer was faced with laying off some employees after a voluntary buyout failed to produce the desired staff reduction. Managers were instructed to rate employees for how “flexible” and “retrainable” they were. Of the 31 who were eventually laid off, 30 were at least 40 years old.
The key is in that last phrase because it is at age 40 that the age discrimination law kicks in. In this case, the defendants were clearly suggesting that the "factors other than age" defense applied because they used the criteria of flexibility and retrainability rather than age. The fact that all but one of those laid off were 40 or older was just a remarkable happenstance. The Supreme Court said, "Fine, now prove it." The burden is not on the plaintiffs, but rather on the party raising the defense.
One of the things I found so remarkable about the decision was that it was 7-1 (Justice Breyer did not participate because he owned stock in a company that administers the federal lab for the government). The lone dissenter? Justice Antonin Scalia, which certainly was no surprise. Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority, which was a surprise.
Just as remarkable, however, is that this session, the Court decided all five of the anti-discrimination law cases in favor of the plaintiffs by removing the procedural hurdles which made bringing such suits to trial nearly impossible. In the last session, the Court had pretty much ruled in favor of business interests on so many other issues that I anticipated more of same this year.
Good news? Absolutely.
The Supreme Court ruled for older workers Thursday in a closely watched age discrimination case, placing on employers the burden of proving that a layoff or other action that hurts older workers more than others was based not on age but on some other “reasonable factor.”
The 7-to-1 decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York, which said employees had the burden of disproving an employer’s defense of reasonableness. ...
The age discrimination law provides that an employment action that would be “otherwise prohibited” is lawful if “the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.” The question in the case was what happens once an employer invokes this defense: does the employer have to prove, or do the plaintiffs have to disprove, the existence of the reasonable non-age factors? [Emphasis added]
One of the first things taught at law school is that the party raising a defense has to prove it up. Here, the defendant in the case claimed the defense that "factors other than age" were behind the layoffs. The facts, however, seemed to suggest otherwise:
In the case on Thursday, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505, the employer was faced with laying off some employees after a voluntary buyout failed to produce the desired staff reduction. Managers were instructed to rate employees for how “flexible” and “retrainable” they were. Of the 31 who were eventually laid off, 30 were at least 40 years old.
The key is in that last phrase because it is at age 40 that the age discrimination law kicks in. In this case, the defendants were clearly suggesting that the "factors other than age" defense applied because they used the criteria of flexibility and retrainability rather than age. The fact that all but one of those laid off were 40 or older was just a remarkable happenstance. The Supreme Court said, "Fine, now prove it." The burden is not on the plaintiffs, but rather on the party raising the defense.
One of the things I found so remarkable about the decision was that it was 7-1 (Justice Breyer did not participate because he owned stock in a company that administers the federal lab for the government). The lone dissenter? Justice Antonin Scalia, which certainly was no surprise. Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority, which was a surprise.
Just as remarkable, however, is that this session, the Court decided all five of the anti-discrimination law cases in favor of the plaintiffs by removing the procedural hurdles which made bringing such suits to trial nearly impossible. In the last session, the Court had pretty much ruled in favor of business interests on so many other issues that I anticipated more of same this year.
Good news? Absolutely.
Labels: Age Discrimination, Supreme Court
posted by Diane at 3:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home