Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rights and responsibilities of age discrimination in employment
History of the Age Discrimination Act of 1967
Rights and responsibilities of age discrimination in employment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
The "2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals" held that those business practices that have had a disparate impact effect on the older workers are now considered to be actionable under one national anti-discrimination law (Hamblett, 2004). The case does reaffirm a second Circuit precedent that had been set but which is at odds with what a majority of federal courts have held. The appeals court supported the idea that a layoff plan had been properly brought under the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) although the company did not have the intention of discriminating.
The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.
It seems that the major issue here is whether or not one can use age as a factor in terms of discrimination when the discrimination was not intentional. If for example it turns out that the people who are laid off are over the age of 40, even though no malicious intent is discovered, it still may be construed as age discrimination. This issue has been somewhat controversial for some time, as most litigants in age discrimination lawsuits realize that they ...
... middle of paper ...
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
References
Hamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit: Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit: Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ:
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 02—749. Argued October 8, 2003–Decided April 2, 2003.
Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-749.ZS.html
After applying the four-fifth’s rule, and examining the selection ratios for all job categories, it is determined that the evidence points to disparate impact discrimination.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
The ruling found that Duke Power Company had violated the Title VII because of their company discriminatory practices; the Supreme Court explains the case conclusion Title VII's purpose is not to restrict testing or diploma requirements for a company hiring or promotions, the act is here to stop segregation; Title VII in no way prohibits testing or diploma requirements for hiring or promotions. Indeed, when they are properly developed and used, tests and other employment criteria can be an effective, efficient means for employers to evaluate applicants. But as the Court explained in Griggs, “What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.” (NAACP) CONCLUSION
In the same year that Zimpfer was rejected, Palm Beach County filled only 4 percent of managerial positions with persons over 55 years of age and only 16 percent with persons over 39. Do these data indicate illegal discrimination using disparate impact theory? Should Zimpfer's lawyer use disparate impact theory for his claim of age discrimination?
Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez was tested positive for cocaine. With the fear of being dismissed from his job, he acknowledged that his behaviour violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules, and obviously, was pressed to quit his job. Also, the reason for the employee resignation was also based on the notion that had he not resigned it would be petitioner who would eventually fired him from his work. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner applied to be re-employed alleging on his application that the following had previously hired him. In his application, he also attached letters coming from, his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counsellor about his regular visit and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a HR employee of petitioner reviewed Hernandez application, she then rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace wrongdoing. According to the HR employee, she did not know that that employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. As a result to this development, Hernandez instituted a suit and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), averring that his rights has been violated in consonant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a consequence, gave a go signal to the respondent and issued a right-to-sue letter and the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent established an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) action, alleging that petitioner did not act on his application for the reason that he has a record of drug addition and/or because he was known before as being a drug user. On the other hand, petitioner responded by filing a summary judgement motion. This resulted to respondent's argumentation in the alternative that in the case that petitioner sought for a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it is still sufficient to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because of that policy's disparate impact.
...lley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., Wolters, R. S., & Mathis, R. L. (2012). Employment & Labor Relations. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his former employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was liable under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by deliberately discriminating against him under both the disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses.
The Age Discrimination Act states that it is prohibited for employers and others to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of their age. This act protects all individuals of all ages against this kind of discrimination. An example this type of discrimination is an experienced and successful senior nurse who is only 40 is fired because the NHS board feel that she is becoming too old for the job and think that someone a few years younger maybe more preferable, so they decide to fire the senior nurse. This is indirect discrimination, where the individual is unaware that they were discriminate against because of their age. The NHS board did not take in to account the senior nurse’s skill, experience or how well she could cope with the job. All they took into account was her age. This act prevents discrimination as if the NHS board followed the rules of the age discrimination act then th...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is not resolving any issues because they’re making payouts, but failing to prove discrimination in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged Texas Roadhouse refused to hire older individuals applying for jobs nationwide for positions, such as servers, hosts, and bartenders because they were 40 years or older. The Employment Equal Opportunity Commission also alleged Texas Roadhouse informed older applicants who applied for positions the restaurant was for “the younger set environment” “we are looking for people on the younger side” and “you seem old to be applying for this job.” Age discrimination violates the age Discrimination Act, so the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit after attempting to reach pre-litigation settlement with Texas Roadhouse.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the catalyst in abolishing the separate but equal policies that had been a mainstay in our society. Though racial discrimination was the initial focal point, its enactment affected every race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in housing, education, employment, public accommodations and the receipt of federal funds based on certain discrimination factors such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age or religion. Title VII is the employment segment of the Civil Rights Act and is considered one of the most important aspects of legislation that has helped define the employment law practices in this country. Prior to Title VII, an employer could hire and fire an employee for any given reason. Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline or other workplace decisions. (Bennett-Alexander-Hartman, Fourth Edition, pp 85) Though it applies to everyone, its enactment was especially significant to women and minorities, who until its passage had limited recourse in harassment based discriminations in the workplace.
Schipani, C. (2013). Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 46(4), 1249-1277.
According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) “the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” The appropriation section o...
Age discrimination continues to be a problem for both men and women that are over the age of 40 in the workforce. In year 1967, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA was passed to prohibit discrimination against workers over age 40 and older. Another law in the year 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. However there are still age discrimination and it seems to be more especially for older women more than older men. The Federal and the state should implement more regulations to protect workers' rights in all age groups, both in the younger and older generation including their race and gender.
Harassment and discrimination can affect a business in many ways. Having a history of harassment and discrimination claims can damage a business’ reputation and affect its bottom line. It can cost the business current and future clients as well as investors and employees. Depending on the gravity of the claim(s), the process of settling the claim(s) can take anywhere from months to years. Meanwhile, the cost of the settlement and other fees continue to add up. A business might have to compensate the affected parties besides paying court fees and lawyers. The EEOC has seen a rise in monetary rewards from 7.5 million to 24.3 million (Glazer, 1996) However, all of these can be avoided by properly educating employers and employees about their rights and what harassment and discrimination entails.