Supreme Court makes it harder to prove age discrimination

[Bozita]

Source: AP

Thursday, June 18, 2009
Supreme Court makes it harder to prove age discrimination
Associated Press


Washington -- The Supreme Court has made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age.

In a 5-4 decision Thursday written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons.

Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.

Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation. A federal appeals court in St. Louis overturned the verdict, however.

Read more: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090618/NATION/906180482/1361/Supreme-Court-makes-it-harder-to-prove-age-discrimination

[DJ13]

1. Can we please fire the 5 old farts that voted for this?

[pattmarty]

10. Unfortunately 4 of these "old farts" ain't that old and will probably...........

........hang on for some time. The "liberals" are the old ones.

[saigon68]

12. Clarence "Long Dong Silver" strikes again

Anther butt licking of corporations by the repuke stooge

[Thrill]

2. How does someone prove it? Does he have to make his manager say

"You're too fucking old, you prick" Wonder would that even be enough to satisfy Thomas.

[kimmylavin]

3. Well, gee...

Its just as easy as proving wage discrimination within 18 months!
Man, this court sure knows its way around a workplace, doesn't it? :banghead:

[No Elephants]

5. Ooops. By adding "you prick," you may have ruined the age discrimination case. Maybe

the employee got fired mostly for being a prick and not simply for being over 50.

Decision for the defendant!

[paulsby]

6. the standard is

by a preponderance of evidence.

[boomerbust]

4. Sounds familiar

I am in my mid fifties and applied for a part time job, and was told that they have a lot of college kids applying too. Discrimination? Probably but try to prove it.

[guruoo]

8. Need proof? Three words...

Digital. Voice. Recorder.

[Seeking Serenity]

7. Petition Congress to strengthen the ADEA

Congress can amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to insist that disparate impact be considered in age discrimination claims, just as it now considered in race or sex discrimination.

This is a fixable problem. Congress just has to do it.

[Fire1]

9. This country just keeps getting better! n/t

:puke:

[ck4829]

11. Once again, this court sides with the powerful over the powerless