Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Richmond Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Richmond Virginia Personal Injury LawyerOlder Workers Gain Some Protection from Mass Layoffs
By Joshua Laws
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).
Workers Compensation Overview
Federal laws that cover workplace injuries
H-1B Visas
How to get professional worker's visa
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Truth In Lending Act
Consumer Loans and Consumer Credit Protection Act
Perdue Farms Faces Class Action By Hourly Workers
Perdue Farms Faces Class Action by Hourly Workers
imbee Data Collection
Industrious Kid, Inc. pays $130,000 civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Germantown Primary Care Associates, P.C.
Unlawfully collected fees refunded in Consumer Protection Act violation suit.
Cintas Settles Laundry Workers' Class Action for $6.5 Million
Cintas Settles Laundry Workers' Class Action for $6.5 Million
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
Hutchinson Oil
Over $75,000 settlement reached in consumer protection lawsuit.

Older Works More Likely to Receive Layoffs and Termination Because of Higher Pay
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Mass Layoffs (Monthly)
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Mass Layoffs Summary
New York Law Requires More Employee Notice for Layoffs
Employment Booming for Older Workers







