From: Breaking Legal News
The Supreme Court has made it harder to prove discrimination on the
basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he
was demoted because of his age. In a 5-4 decision Thursday written
by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove
that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if
there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other
discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer
once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was
made for improper reasons.Jack Gross had been a vice president of
FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he
lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years
later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.Gross
sued u...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Age bias bill responds to Supreme Court ruling
Democrats want to counter a recent Supreme Court ruling that makes
it harder for older workers to prove they are the victims of age
discrimination.The Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony
Wednesday on a bill that would effectively nullify a high court
decision that changed the interpretation of age bias laws.The high
court said it is not enough for employees to show age is a
motivating factor in a demotion or layoff. Rather, workers must
prove it is the deciding factor.Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy says that sets the bar too high for discrimination
victims.The plaintiff in the case was invited to testify. He's Jack
Gross, who was employed by an insurance company in West Des Moines,
Iowa.
Democrats Take On Supreme Court Over Age Discrimination Law
Congressional Democrats are taking a whack at overriding another
recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, looking this time at a
2009 ruling about age discrimination. Plaintiffs lawyers say Gross
v. FBL Financial Services Inc. has made it more difficult to bring
age discrimination claims, and Democrats are taking up their
argument, just as they did after the 2007 decision in Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. about gender discrimination.
White firefighters win Supreme Court appeal
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New
Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their
race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
endorsed as an appeals court judge. The ruling could alter
employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove
discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.New
Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no
African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to
be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court
said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to
avoid a lawsuit from minorities.The ruling could give Sotomayor's
critics fresh ammunition two weeks before her Senate confirmation
hearing. Conservatives say it shows she is...
Leahy's Syllabus of Errors, Part 1 -- By: Carrie Severino
Last Sunday Senator Leahy bemoaned some recent
decisions by the Supreme Court’s four
conservative members plus Justice Kennedy, speculating that they
have cost the institution “credibility with the
American
people.â€Â Let’s take a
closer look at some of the cases Leahy cited to see who exactly is
losing credibility here: 1. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Co. (2007). Â Senator
Leahy’s summary of the case is that the
Justices “rewrote the law to say . . . that
women could be paid less than men.†Stop the
presses! Did the Supreme Court really repeal Title VII,
the veritable cornerstone of the civil-rights
movement? Not even close. The real question
in Ledbetter was whether a person could sit on their employment
discrimination claims for well over a decade and still sue....
Feds: Supreme Court Ruling Led to Dismissal Against Westar Executives
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring proof of kickbacks or bribes
in prosecutions involving the theft of so-called honest services
left prosecutors with "little choice" but to dismiss charges
against two former Westar Energy executives, the U.S. Attorney's
Office said Monday. That decision prompted Westar's executive vice
president to issue a statement saying the company disagreed with
the DOJ's decision and planned to pursue civil claims in an
arbitration proceeding that had been put on hold pending the
criminal case.
