ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Richmond Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Richmond Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer

Older Workers Gain Some Protection from Mass Layoffs

By Joshua Laws

ADVERTISEMENTS

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that older workers who allege age discrimination during a mass layoff do not have the burden of proving that no reasonable factor motivated the employer.

As reported in the NY Times, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory involved a reduction in force (or RIF) where 30 of 31 employees terminated were over 40 years old. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects employees who are 40 or older from an employer's actions that have a discriminatory impact. The employees claimed the RIF had a disparate impact on employees over 40, meaning that the employer was not motivated by age bias but its decision still affected those over 40 more than those under 40.

The ADEA provides employers a defense to these claims. An employer can claim that the action it took was motivated by "reasonable factors other than age." The question before the Court was who had the burden of proof when an employer argues this defense: 1) the employees, who would have to prove that no other reasonable factor motivated the employer; or 2) the employer, who would need to prove that they took into account some reasonable factor or factors?

The Court held, 7-1, that employers who asserted the defense were required to prove it. Justice Souter, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that this burden would be costly to employers. But the law compelled this result and those who disagreed should complain to Congress and not the Court.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joshua Laws

Full post as published by Richmond Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer on June 20, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0132 secs (new cache)