Supreme Court Undermines Age Discrimination Plaintiffs
Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas today leads the conservative wing of the Supreme Court in an unusual decision that rules that plaintiffs in age discrimination suits don’t get the same benefit of the doubt that every other discrimination plaintiff gets.
In concluding that a plaintiff claiming age discrimination must show not only that age was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, but the determinative motivating factor, the court is essentially requiring the employee to produce direct evidence that the employer’s action was based only on age. In the past, because employers are careful to hide direct evidence of discriminatory motives, after a plaintiff had provided evidence of age discrimination the burden shifted to the employer to prove its legitimate reason for firing or demoting the older employee.
In this ruling, the high court appears to have just upended the prevailing understanding of employment discrimination law dating back to the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a key Supreme Court ruling in 1989, and effectively pronounced that age discrimination is simply less important to remedy than race, gender, ethnic or disability discrimination.
Given how widespread layoffs of older employees are in this economy, the court just substantially undercut the only federal protection those employees have.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter (yes, another 5-4 decision), called the majority’s opinion “particularly inappropriate” given the “unambiguous history” of courts interpreting the application of the age discrimination law in the same way as other employment discrimination prohibitions.
“I disagree not only with the court’s interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking,” he wrote.
This afternoon, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) also weighed in on the decision with a statement.
“In the Supreme Court’s decision today, five justices acted to disregard precedent and ignore the plain reading and common understanding of the statute that Congress passed to protect Americans from discrimination based on their age,” he said, adding: “By disregarding congressional intent and the time-honored understanding of the statute, a five member majority of the Court has today stripped our most senior American employees of important protections.”
8 Comments
Comment posted June 18, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Looks like we need another law, a la Lily Ledbetter.
Seriously, don't the right-wing five have a dog to kick? Or something else to release their bile, and spare innocent hard-working Americans?
Comment posted June 18, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
Looks like we need another law, a la Lily Ledbetter.
Seriously, don't the right-wing five have a dog to kick? Or something else to release their bile, and spare innocent hard-working Americans?
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 3:03 am
Yes, this can be remedied by Congress– and probably will be, as more baby boomers start getting the shaft.
Fighting age discrimination has been a big problem lately– the courts have already said it's OK for prospective employers to ask for school attendance dates and even if you are over 40-years old! So this decision is really no surprise– I mean, this is a court that favors the people with power.
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
When laws are made or created there is a reason, but this court sames to have its own agenda. We have discrimination of all kinds in this country today and for them to take away any part of this, only leaves me to say; what is next. Also there should be a start time and time limit on the high court.
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
They have also stripped the older worker of health care in the process, since they have a harder time getting insurance and getting jobs. Why do conservatives do this to people?
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 7:06 am
Fighting age discrimination has been a big problem lately– the courts have already said it's OK for prospective employers to ask for school attendance dates and even if you are over 40-years old! So this decision is really no surprise– I mean, this is a court that favors the people with power.
Comment posted July 25, 2010 @ 8:33 am
hey have also stripped the older worker of health care in the process, since they have a harder time getting insurance and getting jobs. Why do conservatives do this to people?
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 6:16 am
total agree on this! interesting article! thanks for sharing!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss