A federal appellate court recently held that a 58-year-old
executive who was fired for allegedly failing to meet company
expectations may sue his former employer for age discrimination.
According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a reasonable jury
could find that the company discriminated against him in violation
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
A federal appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an employee who claimed that his employer discriminated against him because of his religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the employer satisfied its obligation to reasonably accommodate the worker's religious beliefs.
The US Supreme Court decided today 5-4 that a mixed motives jury instruction quotis never proper in an ADEA case.quot
Gross v. FBL Financial Services US Supreme Court 06182009
Gross sued claiming that his demotion was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA, and won a jury verdict. The 8th Circuit reversed on the ground that the jury had been improperly instructed under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 1989. The US Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit decision.
The Court said:
quotThe parties have asked us to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.. Before reaching this question, however, we must first determi...
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (June 18, 2009), a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse employment action i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individual's age.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. June 18, 2009, a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse employment action i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individual's age.
pa href"http:feedads.g.doubleclick.netai-5DyVT-HIGWXZf6x1L6CwXA8ng0da"img src"http:feedads.g.doubleclick.netai-5DyVT-HIGWXZf6x1L6CwXA8ng0di" border"0" ismap"true"imgabr
a href"http:feedads.g.doubleclick.netai-5DyVT-HIGWXZf6x1L6CwXA8ng1da"img ...
A federal appellate court recently held that an employee who claimed he was subjected to 14 months of racially-motivated comments cannot succeed on his Title VII racial harassment claim. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the case must be dismissed because the alleged behavior was not "severe and pervasive" and the employee failed to adequately pursue his complaint with his supervisors.
Every hour, we bring the best news and advice from dozens of blogs and sites to one place for our community of experts and enthusiasts to vote on what's most interesting each day. Join the conversation and submit an article for publication on My Employment Law!
Put fresh news from My Employment Law on your site
Embed our widget to your blog or site and get the latest headlines from My Employment Law automatically updated each hour.
