supreme court ruling - age discrimination

[rhh]

What is the name of your state?ca

yesterday's ruling....... a lot about nothing..or? what does it mean in real english?

thanks in advance..

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Don't have a clue. Would you like to try English and tell the forum what the heck you are talking about?

 

[cbg]

It means that an employee who files an age discrimination suit does not have to prove the employer INTENDED to discriminate. It's too soon to say what kind of an effect this is going to have on employment, except that age discrimination suits will probably triple in the next year.

 

[Beth3]

Ditto to what cbg said. The Supremes ruled that adverse impact is enough to establish a potential claim for age discrimination.

 

[HomeGuru]

Ditto to what cbg said. The Supremes ruled that adverse impact is enough to establish a potential claim for age discrimination.

**A: are the Supremes still together and is Diana Ross still concert touring ?

 

[Beth3]

I seem to recall that at least one of them passed away a few years ago (Mary Bird?) and as for Diana Ross, hopefully she's somewhere having a good meal.

 

[Beth3]

Breaking News--
**Supremes Decide On Age & Disparate Impact
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that older workers can file disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Police officers over the age of 40 had filed suit, based on a city policy that provided greater raises to police officers and dispatchers who had less than five years of tenure compared to those with more seniority. The older workers claimed that the policy, although facially neutral, had a disparate impact on their age group, since the majority of those with more seniority were over the age of 40.
Disparate impact claims have long been allowed under Title VII, but courts have typically found that they were not viable under the ADEA - until now. But there is still one major difference. The High Court went on to say that the ADEA permits any otherwise prohibited action "where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." Employers cannot use this "reasonable factor" defense in Title VII disparate impact cases.
In this case, the city was successful in its defense.
The Supreme Court ruled that the disparate impact was attributable to the city's decision to give raises based on seniority and position, which are "unquestionably reasonable"
factors given the city's goal to attract and retain qualified people and compete with other public sector agencies. (Smith, et al. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al.)