Age Discrimination Articles
- Created on Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:18
A referee of the Connecticut Office of Public Hearings found that an employee under age 40 could state an age discrimination claim under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). CHRO v. NERAC, Inc., CHRO Case No. 0840031 (Aug. 2, 2012). The referee also held the male employee could state a pregnancy related sex discrimination claim under the Act based on his wife’s pregnancy. The man claimed he was fired based on his age and after his wife became pregnant.
- Created on Wednesday, 01 July 2009 12:07
Click here to download a pdf copy of this article
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that employees bringing age claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act always have the burden of proving that age was the “but for” reason for any adverse action. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441 (June 18, 2009). The Court stated that even when the plaintiff can show that both legal and unlawful discriminatory reasons played a part in an employer’s decision, the burden never shifts to the employer to prove it would have taken the same action regardless of the employee’s age.
- Created on Friday, 01 July 2005 12:18
On March 30, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees could bring disparate impact based suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Smith v. City of Jackson, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2931. Expanding the disparate impact theory to age cases now permits a plaintiff to claim that a neutral employment practice that has a disproportionate negative impact on older workers is unlawful, without having to prove discriminatory intent.