Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> California Labor & Employment Defense Blog
(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
Labor & Employment Law
: California Labor & Employment Defense BlogU.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Test for "Disparate Impact" Age Discrimination in Meachum v. Knolls Atomic Power
It is not enough for employers to avoid deliberate discrimination against members of protected groups when selecting employees for layoff. In addition, they must avoid inadvertently using any selection criteria that tend to have a "disparate impact" on a particular group.
In Meachum v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for employers to disprove this type of discrimination claim -- which is sometimes referred to as "negligent" or "unintended" discrimination. As the Court explained, under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is the employer's burden to affirmatively prove that any statistical disparate impact against older workers is actually the result of a "reasonable factor" not tied to age.
Disparate impact cases usually turn on conflicting expert analysis of the statistical data. Having to carry the burden of persuading a jury on these complicated issues will thus tend to place employers at a significant disadvantage. For example, in the trial court, the plaintiffs were able to prevail by showing that the employer's performance rankings included scores for "flexibility" and "criticality" and that older workers did significantly worse on these criteria.
To show a disparate impact, the workers relied on a statistical expert's testimony to the effect that results so skewed according to age could rarely occur by chance; and that the scores for “flexibility” and “criticality,” over which managers had the most discretionary judgment, had the firmest statistical ties to the outcomes.
The lesson for employers is to always check the outcomes of layoff criteria before implementing the terminations. A significant over-representation of any one group is a red flag that should result in a re-evaluation of the criteria.
Full post as published by California Labor & Employment Defense Blog on September 19, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Child Support
Disputing Paternity
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.
Mirrors
Recalled Due to Impact and Laceration Hazards
Water Samples
Govert Well & Pump agrees to $100,000 settlement after failing to test for coliform bacteria.
Canadian Government
allegedly used Canadian soldier as test subjects for nuclear explosion radiation exposure.
Hospira AC Power Cord Recall
Hospira AC Power Cord Recall
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

Employers face additional burden in defending age claims
U.S. Supreme Court Sets New Rules for Defending Some Age Cases
Supreme Court Considers Age Discrimination Burdens of Proof
Big Employment Law Day at Supreme Court








