Collecting SS Benefits - Can Employer Cut My Pay?

[justalayman]

If the 'black guy' was fired when his side job was braiding African hair... AND he was the only one fired... that would be unlawful discrimination. That's what we are really talking about.

Honestly, if something is a policy crafted so it only has discriminatory intent, or outcome, that is illegal discrimination. That's disparate impact. The EEOC agrees, rightly.

Ummm... lottery winners aren't a protected class, they are not even a wobbler class... so maybe you are talking out your butt and should confine your hypothetical examples to actually legally protected classes .

The lottery win was simply a second source of income. It would be comparable to the ops situation with his social security income.

People having a second income is not a protected class. The intent was to show the op does not belong to a protected class based on the second income. His age is coincidental.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Depending on the size of the pay cut, op pay qualify for unemployment if he or she leaves.

 

[xylene]

The intent was to show the op does not belong to a protected class based on the second income. His age is coincidental.

I think I've shown it all. You are a corporate shill and and an apologist for barely concealed illegal discrimination.

The hairs you are splitting... so sad.

 

[justalayman]

I think I've shown it all. You are a corporate shill and and an apologist for barely concealed illegal discrimination.

The hairs you are splitting... so sad.

You’re hilarious. . A corporate shill. That is so far from the truth it laughable ha ha ha ha

The fact you jump to conclusions without enough evidence says a lot about you. You not only read between the lines, you pry them apart and insert your own set of facts and then draw conclusions from that. There are so few facts here yet you’re so certain there is illegal discrimination. I hope you never serve on a jury because the defendant will surely not get a fair trial. They will get whatever you think happened regardless whether the facets support it or not.

 

[LdiJ]

You’re hilarious. . A corporate shill. That is so far from the truth it laughable ha ha ha ha

The fact you jump to conclusions without enough evidence says a lot about you. You not only read between the lines, you pry them apart and insert your own set of facts and then draw conclusions from that. There are so few facts here yet you’re so certain there is illegal discrimination. I hope you never serve on a jury because the defendant will surely not get a fair trial. They will get whatever you think happened regardless whether the facets support it or not.

JAL, you are not an attorney, nor are most of us.

We have a situation here where the employer is seriously crossing a line, morally. Whether or not someone could be successful in challenging the employer, legally, could be up for grabs.

Are you proposing that the OP should NOT challenge the employer legally? Are you so certain of your legal position that you would advise the OP to roll over and play dead?

 

[justalayman]

JAL, you are not an attorney, nor are most of us.

We have a situation here where the employer is seriously crossing a line, morally. Whether or not someone could be successful in challenging the employer, legally, could be up for grabs.

Are you proposing that the OP should NOT challenge the employer legally? Are you so certain of your legal position that you would advise the OP to roll over and play dead?

refer back to post 27



The law involved doesn’t give a rats butt about morals. I don’t know why you would even bring it up.

And if you have actually read what I wrote, I was not making a conclusion. I stated, many times, there isn’t enough information to make conclusion. Xylene is the one making conclusions. Maybe you need to admonish him for making a conclusion. I surely have not done so.

I never suggested the op not pursue this if they wish to. In fact, at one point when he brought in some additional information, I responded by stating that might support a claim for age discrimination, if certain other actions did or didn’t occur.

So yes, I am confident in my position. Of course, my position is a conclusion is not possible due to the lack of information. That doesn’t suggest the op take nor refrain from any given action.

 

[Taxing Matters]

JAL, you are not an attorney, nor are most of us.

We have a situation here where the employer is seriously crossing a line, morally.

Morals and ethics are a separate issue from what the law requires, of course. It is not all that unusual that the law sets the bare minimum of what one should do but that a good sense of ethics or morals might demand that one do more than just what the law imposes. We see all too often on these boards where employers do stupid and sometimes ethically wrong things to employees that are nevertheless legal to do. But as these boards are primarily for the discussion of the law rather than one to debate ethics and morals I think this really is not the forum to debate the employer's ethics.

Whether or not someone could be successful in challenging the employer, legally, could be up for grabs.

The problem I see is that Xylene has staked out a position that the employer's action in reducing pay in this case is illegal discrimination. Not that it might be, but that it is. And Xylene's reasoning for that is faulty because the law on disparate impact is not what Xylene stated it was. I have provided the Supreme Court statements that specifically address that fault. Like it or not, we simply do not have all the facts in this thread to make a good legal conclusion on whether the employer would be committing illegal discrimination by making that cut in pay. It might be illegal discrimination, but without all the details, no one really can say for sure that it is. That's all I'm saying, and that is what I understand JAL to be saying here.

The OP ought to discuss it with an attorney who litigates illegal employment discrimination and go over all the those details. That's really the only way the OP is going to get a good answer on that.

 

[justalayman]

I couldn’t have said it better,


And won’t even try


In the immortal words of Stan Lee;

‘Nuff said

 

[LdiJ]

Morals and ethics are a separate issue from what the law requires, of course. It is not all that unusual that the law sets the bare minimum of what one should do but that a good sense of ethics or morals might demand that one do more than just what the law imposes. We see all too often on these boards where employers do stupid and sometimes ethically wrong things to employees that are nevertheless legal to do. But as these boards are primarily for the discussion of the law rather than one to debate ethics and morals I think this really is not the forum to debate the employer's ethics.



The problem I see is that Xylene has staked out a position that the employer's action in reducing pay in this case is illegal discrimination. Not that it might be, but that it is. And Xylene's reasoning for that is faulty because the law on disparate impact is not what Xylene stated it was. I have provided the Supreme Court statements that specifically address that fault. Like it or not, we simply do not have all the facts in this thread to make a good legal conclusion on whether the employer would be committing illegal discrimination by making that cut in pay. It might be illegal discrimination, but without all the details, no one really can say for sure that it is. That's all I'm saying, and that is what I understand JAL to be saying here.

The OP ought to discuss it with an attorney who litigates illegal employment discrimination and go over all the those details. That's really the only way the OP is going to get a good answer on that.

In my opinion, JAL was saying specifically that it was NOT illegal discrimination. Or at least, that is the impression he gave me. Not that we didn't have enough information to say one way or another, but that it was NOT.

Otherwise, I would not have commented.

 

[justalayman]

In my opinion, JAL was saying specifically that it was NOT illegal discrimination. Or at least, that is the impression he gave me. Not that we didn't have enough information to say one way or another, but that it was NOT.

Otherwise, I would not have commented.

The bulk of the conversation was trying to explain to xylene why he was wrong. It wasn’t stating there was absolutely no claim but that xylene was wrong for being so matter of fact saying there was. If you interpreted that as me saying there was no possibility of a claim, then you were wrong.

Here is part of my post in post 27

The fact is we do not have enough info to say there is illegal discrimination but we do have enough to say that there is not enough revealed here to support such a claim by itself. You have taken one action, that happens to be available to only older folks and twisted the reaction by the employer such that it must be because of the guys age. At this point, age is coincidental as there is nothing to show the action was due to his age.

So where does that say the op has no claim? It specifically states the determination cannot be made based on facts presented here.


And from post 18

Now that set of facts might support an age discrimination issue. It’s still not a slam dunk but it is a very different set of facts than what you presented first.

i even said there might be illegal discrimination

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Not even close to a comparable situation.

Please explain how it isn't.

 

[Shadowbunny]

You're correct - I became eligible for Social Security 3 months ago and immediately applied for benefits. My guess is that the SSA contacted my employer despite their assurance that they wouldn't.

That's highly unlikely. A more possible and plausible explanation is that your employer knows you reached full retirement age and are eligible for SS.

 

[justalayman]

That's highly unlikely. A more possible and plausible explanation is that your employer knows you reached full retirement age and are eligible for SS.

A poster on another forum who would see such contacts has stated they have seen it happen a lot with no reason as to why


But, what is retirement age?

You can first draw at 62. Your full benefit age varies based upon the year of your birth so, since you believe you know how old a person is because they have filed for SSA, how old is the op? Op never stated they were receiving full benefits nor that they weren’t.

 

[Shadowbunny]

? Op never stated they were receiving full benefits nor that they weren’t.

From the first post:

I'm in NJ and collecting SS benefits (full retirement age) while still continuing to work full time.

 

[justalayman]

Please explain how it isn't.

First, your statement doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Then, gender or sex is irrelevent.

So, sexual harassment is the act that is illegal. It is always illegal. It can’t be maybe legal under certain circumstances or if everybody is sexually harassed.

It is not illegal to be over 40
It is not illegal to take an action against somebody over 40 unless it is taken due to their age
If an employer takes an action against all employees regardless of age, it cannot be age discriminating.


There is simply no comparison to your poorly worded scenario and reviewing some act and determining whether it is,illegal age discrimination or not