Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

As the population ages, and the economy continues to languish, more and more older Americans are putting off retirement and continuing to remain in the workplace. While many of these individuals offer long records of experience and maturity, companies often overlook hiring or promoting older employees in favor of their younger counterparts. As a result, age discrimination has become one of the fastest growing types of employment discrimination.

In a recent case, a 68-year-old attorney who was denied a job at a software firm filed a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) asserting that he was “clearly better qualified” than the “substantially younger” applicant.

Similar to other anti-discrimination laws, the ADEA prohibits adverse employment actions against you on the basis of age – including decisions regarding hiring and firing – and protects you from harassment based on your age.

In Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., a company hired a substantially younger candidate explaining that although the older candidate – Moss - had more extensive legal experience, the successful candidate had greater familiarity and expertise with specific transactions that formed the majority of the job. Moss asserted that the company’s reasons for hiring the younger candidate were mere pretense and that and his age was a “motivating factor” in the company’s decision not to hire him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected these arguments and granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, noting that the “motivating factor” standard is not applicable to ADEA cases. Unlike Title VII discrimination, under the ADEA plaintiffs must prove age was a “but for” cause of an adverse employment action.

In granting the summary judgment motion, the court stated that the employee failed to show direct discrimination and would not “second-guess’’ the company’s business judgment about which job qualifications were most essential.

Although age may be a factor considered in an employer’s decision -making process, it cannot be the only one.

Continue reading "Court Rejects Argument Of Age Bias" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination

Bookmark:

As the number of older Americans in the work place continues to increase, so does the number of Americans facing age discrimination at work. If you are over 40, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits your employer from discriminating against you and protects you from harassment based on your age.

Often, discrimination occurs when one company merges with another, or goes through a reduction in force (“RIF’) and evaluates which employees to retain or terminate. If the employee’s age is used to determine whether someone should be laid off, the employee may have a claim for age discrimination.

A recent case determined that when one company buys-out another, claims based on age discrimination survive. In Phair v. New Page Corp., a 55-year-old employee – David Phair – was fired after his employer was purchased by another company. In advising the new company regarding whom to retain and whom to eliminate, the managers of the former employer raised concerns about the age of some employees and offered anecdotal evidence about who might be a good fit. Without a comprehensive review of any employee personnel files or performance reviews, Phair was offered a temporary position involving significant travel. He declined this position and was fired. An additional 4 employees, all older than 40, were terminated as well.

Several factors affected the court’s determination that Phair could maintain a cause of action against the companies. First, the District Court found that although Phair’s offered transfer was lateral, it could be considered an “adverse employment action” because it involved switching from a full time position without travel to one involving extensive travel. Further, Phair was replaced with an employee 4 years, 9 months younger than him. Because authority is split on whether this constitutes a “substantial age difference,” the court determined that an age difference close to 5 years was sufficient to raise an inference of age bias. Finally, the court held that discriminatory comments such as concern over the “aging workforce” and the fact that statistically older workers were overrepresented in the group of employees let go was sufficient to create a triable issue on whether age was a “but for” factor in Phair’s termination.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Claim Allowed To Proceed After Company Buy-Out" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination

Bookmark:

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a June 18, 2009 decision, has limited a claimant’s ability to prove an age discrimination case in court. The case, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (08-441), decided by a 5-4 margin, decided a burden of proof issue that had never been completely resolved since the passage of the ADEA in 1967.

The question involved what happens in “mixed motive” cases, where there may have been some “legitimate” (i.e., non-discriminatory) factor, in addition to age, that played a part in the employer’s action. In Gross, for example, the plaintiff was demoted as part of a restructuring, but there was evidence age bias played a part in the decision.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Narrows Ability to Prove Age Discrimination" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination

Bookmark:

You got laid off or fired. You’re over the age of 50, or even 40. Younger people, some of whom you’ve trained, get to keep their jobs. Is it good business or age discrimination?

ABC News is tracking this issue, and reports a great increase in age discrimination filings with the EEOC. It may be that companies are using the economy as an excuse to get rid of workers that they couldn’t fire under more normal economic circumstances.

Continue reading "Layoffs and Age Discrimination" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination

Bookmark: