Home > Tags > Age discrimination

Age discrimination

This page was specificaly designed for you to help you find information related to
"Age discrimination" on our site.

The following pages should help you:

  • Age discrimination, our practice area.
    The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as well as certain state and local laws, prohibits age-based workplace discrimination against an employee age 40 and over. An employer may not, for example, give less favorable treatment or job opportunities to an employee because of his or her age, target older employees during a layoff, or pressure older workers to retire.

  • Discrimination, our practice area related to age discrimination.
    Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit workplace discrimination based on an employee's race, sex, religion, national origin, pregnancy, age, or disability. Employees working in the District of Columbia and other localities are also protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, family responsibilities, personal appearance, matriculation, or political affiliation. These laws protect employees from discrimination with respect to all terms and conditions of their employment, including hiring, compensation, promotion, treatment on the job, and termination. These laws also bar employers from making employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or likely performance of individuals because of their sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or disability.

  • Constructive Discharge
    The U.S. Supreme Court's 2003-04 term featured few employment cases, little disagreement among the justices regarding their disposition and, on balance, more victories for plaintiffs than defendants. The court expanded the statute of limitation for certain claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and gave both plaintiffs and defendants something to applaud and decry in its decision on constructive discharge in the sexual harassment context. It rejected a theory of "reverse age discrimination," and declined to make a substantive ruling in a much-anticipated disability case, instead chastising the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for applying the wrong analytical framework.

  • Only Two Major Rulings
    The U.S. Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term had few employment cases, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement this term, once again played a crucial role in important employment and civil rights matters decided by the court. O'Connor authored the court's opinion in a case that recognized a private cause of action for claims of retaliation under Title IX and authored the lengthy dissent from the court's opinion recognizing disparate impact claims for plaintiff in age discrimination cases. O'Connor's position as the swing vote has often placed her at the center of many of the court's most important and controversial labor and employment cases, and her departure raises significant questions as to the direction such cases win take in the future.

  • Stall Tactics
    With two extremely disappointing Supreme Court decisions in the past year, the rights of women workers have been seriously eroded. The most recent blow to women's rights at work came on February 26 when the Court issued an opinion in Sprint United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, an age-discrimination case which has great significance for all types of discrimination claims, including sexual harassment. The question before the court was whether plaintiffs can bolster their claims of discrimination by introducing testimony from employees who suffered similar discrimination by other supervisors at the same company. That sort of testimony is derisively referred to as "me too" evidence. Sprint and other businesses want to bar this form of "circumstantial" evidence, which is often crucial to plaintiffs in establishing their cases.


Age discrimination in the News:

Back to tags list