A KANSAS AGE DISCRIMINATION ATTORNEY FOR KANSAS EMPLOYEES |
| Recent Supreme Court Cases on Age Discrimination The United States Supreme Court has recently issued a variety of opinions on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The age discrimination law is worded differently from those laws that prohibit other forms of discrimination, and age discrimination has been a more difficult area with which to deal. If an employee believes that he has a case of retaliation, he must file a claim or charge with the EEOC or his state agency that handles such claims. In 2007, the EEOC reported 26,663 retaliation charges. This shows that an employer might retaliate against an employee, including an older employee who complains about age discrimination even when there was no actual underlying discrimination. In other words, the employee does not have to prove actual discrimination in order to prove that he was retaliated against for protesting what he believed to be discrimination. 1. Disparate Impact: With other discrimination laws, a plaintiff can prove discrimination either by showing that the employee himself was treated differently from others, or by showing that a company policy that might be neutral on its face, had a disproportionate impact upon him. It was not clear if the ADEA prohibited this disparate impact type of claim. It was very important because often older workers are impacted by decisions to downsize or reorganize more than younger workers. In SMITH et al. v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, et al., 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that an older worker (40 years or older) can bring a disparate impact claim but that the employer was not liable for age discrimination if REASONABLE FACTORS OTHER THAN AGE formed the basis for the decision. This was an important victory for older workers, but it might not be that difficult to show that reasonable factors other than age were the reason for the action that caused the disparate impact on older employees. 2. Proof of Discrimination Based Upon Discrimination Against Other Older Employees: In SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. MENDELSOHN, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in an age discrimination case that is certain circumstances an older worker can use evidence that other older employees were also the victims of discrimination. This ruling will affect the Age Discrimination law as well as other discrimination laws. However, the court said that whether evidence involving other older employees can come into evidence depends on whether they are relevant to proving discrimination against the older worker who brought the ADEA claim. 3. The Process for Filing an Agre Discrimination Claim: In FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION V. HOLOWECKI, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that an intake questionnaire can be used as a charge of discrimination. This decision will apply to the age discrimination act as well as to other discrimination laws. The issue was that even though the plaintiff had filed a questionnaire with the EEOC, she had not filed a charge of age discrimination within the 300 day period following the discrimination. The Court found that the EEOC was partly at fault for this, and the Court ruled that as long as the older worker had submitted a signed statement that she intended to make a complaint of age discrimination against her employer, the charge was timely. This is a very important case because many older employees wait for several months to file their claim of age discrimination, or the employment lawyer waits until the last minute. Because the EEOC often uses the intake questionnaire as the first step in filing a charge of discrimination, including age discrimination, the employee's actual charge might be failed too late. By using other documents as the charge of age discrimination, the Supreme Court helped to protect the rights of older works. 4. The Burden of Proof in Age Discrimination Claims: In MEACHAM et al. v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, aka KAPL, INC., et al., 2008, the Supreme Court held that the employer has the burden of proving the reasonable factors other than age were the basis of the decision that had a disparate impact upon the older employees in the company. This is important because it is hard for older employees to prove a negative--that other factors did were not the reason for the decision that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Law. Thus, it will basically be up to the employer to prove that it did not violate the age laws once a case of disparate impact is shown. 5. Retaliation Under the Age Discrimination Law: In GOMEZ- PEREZ V. POTTER, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the ADEA prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination. Although this decision applied to age discrimination against older workers in the federal government, its principles should apply to private sector employees as well. Equally important, the Supreme Court ruled in BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. v. WHITE, 2006, that the anti- retaliation provision of Title VII does not require that a tangible employment action (one with economic harm) be taken against an employee. Rather, the anti-retaliation provision covers those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. The Court agreed with the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits that the proper formulation requires a retaliation plaintiff to show that the challenged action “well might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’ Although this case applied to Title VII, its reasoning might well apply to age discrimination cases. Thus, older employers who are reassigned, or subject to a hostile work environment, after complaining of age discrimination will have a case of retaliation. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Kansas employment law attorney representing Kansas employees in employment disputes concerning race, age and gender discrimination, disability issues, family medical leave, civil rights, due process, sexual harassment, wage and hour disputes, wrongful discharge and termination in Kansas City, Johnson County, Overland Park, Topeka, Wichita, and across the state of Kansas. Kansas employees who believe their employment rights have been violated should contact a competent Kansas employment rights attorney who knows federal and Kansas law. |
| Michael M. Shultz With offices in Johnson and Douglas Counties 913-385-9955 |