Library Search

FAQ   Summaries of Law   Dictionary

• U.S. Supreme Court Concludes Disparate Impact Claims are Viable Under the ADEA ( June 2005 )
  Sean C. Urich of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

  In a watershed decision on March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held an employer may be held liable for age discrimination based on a facially neutral employment policy that has a disproportionate effect, or "disparate impact," on older workers. In Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, the Supreme Court resolved an issue of longstanding uncertainty among the lower courts, finding that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act ("ADEA").

• Supreme Court Expands Scope of Age Discrimination Law ( April 2005 )
  Christopher J. Perry and David M. Jaffe of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

  In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that workers age 40 and over do not have to prove an intent to discriminate and may allege age discrimination under the ADEA under a "disparate impact" theory. The proof required for such an action, however, may be more favorable to employers than in other discrimination cases.

• Amendments To Delaware's Discrimination In Employment Act Establish New Administrative Procedures And Create A New Right To Sue In State Court ( September 2004 )
  Wendy K. Voss of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

  While changes in the Delaware Discrimination Act are of note to all employers, the recent changes in the Act are of special significance to small employers who employ fewer than fifteen (15) people. The revised Delaware statute, which applies to employers of four (4) or more individuals, provides a new cause of action in the Delaware Superior Court for protected employees.

• Employers May Discriminate in Favor of Their Most Senior Employees ( June 2004 )
  Sherry L. Travers of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

  The US Supreme Court recently addressed to what extent an employer may discriminate against its younger workers in favor of its most senior employees.

• Supreme Court: ADEA Does Not Allow Reverse Age Claims ( April 2004 )
  Alexis L. Pheiffer of Quarles & Brady LLP

  In an opinion issued February 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") does not prevent an employer from favoring older employees over younger employees.

• February 2004 Benefits Alert: Supreme Court Saves Benefits Plans from "Reverse Discrimination" Claims ( February 2004 )
  Nixon Peabody LLP

  In a closely-watched case, the Supreme Court has held that an employer may provide benefits to a select group of older employees while not providing the same benefits to a similar group of younger employees even though the younger employees are also protected by federal age discrimination laws. A lower court decision to the contrary had threatened long-standing employer practices of grandfathering older employees from adverse changes in benefits plans and of offering early retirement incentives only to older employees.

• EEOC Clarifies Rules On Age Discrimination Waivers ( March 2001 )
  David A. Anderson of Parsons Behle & Latimer

  When employers decide to reduce the size of their workforces, or to terminate an employee who is over 40 years of age, they often offer severance pay in exchange for a release and waiver of legal claims by the terminated employees. In 1990, Congress passed the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("Older Workers Act"), which established procedural rules employers must follow in seeking such a waiver from employees who are over 40 years of age.