Courts and age-ism, now it's even easier to sue...
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
It seems that the courts have decided that it should be even easier to sue in this country. I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing. Read on.
From MSNBC (originally from Associated Press).... Headline is linked.
High court ruling seen favoring older workers
Deliberate bias not needed to win age-discrimination suits
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:54 a.m
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Wednesday for any worker over 40 to allege age discrimination, ruling that employers can be held liable even if they never intended any harm.
The unanimous ruling sides with older police officers in saying they do not have to prove that the city of Jackson, Miss., deliberately tried to discriminate against them, just show that the policies disproportionately harmed them. Nevertheless, the high court dismissed the suit, saying officers did not demonstrate that.
The ruling means that workers age 40 and over — about half the nation’s work force — now have less of a burden to raise their claim in court when suing under federal law.
The Supreme Court already has said the so-called disparate impact claims are allowed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sex, religion or race. On Wednesday, justices said it should be no different for age discrimination, although it ruled the scope of liability is narrower.
“Congress’ decision to limit the coverage” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ... “is consistent with the fact that age, unlike race or other classifications protected by Title VII, not uncommonly has relevance to an individual’s capacity to engage in certain types of employment,” Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s oldest justice, wrote for the majority.
...
At issue was workplace polices that appear neutral but actually disproportionately hurt older workers. Advocates for the aging say few employers would ever be up front about intentionally favoring younger workers, making age bias claims hard to win absent the rare “smoking gun.”
... more at linked article
This is a very strange case. I admit, as I get older, I worry more about age discrimination in employment. Certainly it is easy to be replaced with younger and cheaper. I've had it happen to me already, even though I would be considered by many to be a young man, middle-aged at best. I was replaced (along with several others at my former employer) because I was deemed too expensive (believe me, I was far from over compensated, it's just that the employer was used to paying minimum wage type salaries, and I earned better. Of course, I also normally brought in much higher profits because I produced better than the minimum wage youngsters).
It was obvious to me as I was laid off, along with about a dozen others, that all of the people that were being laid off were higher paid, longer term employees. Even though the company policy was last hired, first fired, that was not what was done. The company was trying to "right size" and save money (without having to cut the CEO and other officer's salaries and compensation packages) and they went for where they saw the most money.
I can't really complain, because I was given a fairly generous severance package (as were the others that were let go, all of which was done to avoid any possible law-suits), but it was painfully obvious to me that I was a victim of age discrimination (I was literally let go even as my department brought in someone that was younger and less well compensated, same for most of the others let go at the time). I still am disappointed in my superiors that didn't pay heed as I warned that I wasn't being kept busy enough and my services should have been sold to customers at lower rates so I could keep bringing in business, but it's all water under the bridge.
Still, I'm torn because I don't normally like to see lawsuits made easier, especially in such a grey area. What the courts seem to be doing is saying that even though a company doesn't intend harm, if they do accidentally harm a group, they can still be held liable. I'm no lawyer. I don't play one on TV. I've been through a little business law in my educational experience (enjoyed it immensely) and one of the things I recall from that experience was that "intent" is normally necessary when trying to determine if someone should be held responsible for an action. The high court now seems to be indicating that isn't necessary at all, and that scares me a bit.
Lets take a hypothetical, and see how this could work. If I go out tomorrow and take a baseball and toss it to my son, I intend for it to be part of a game of catch with my son. Instead of going to my son, because I'm an uncoordinated goof, the ball goes on a different path and strikes a neighbor dead in the face breaking their nose. This is an obvious accident, there was no intent at all, yet I'm responsible. Ok, I can accept the responsibility for it, and would be required to pay medical bills or have my insurance do the same, but could I be tossed in jail because I commited an assault, even though there was no intent? In traditional views of the law, without that intent, there was no crime. But with this new view of the law, it seems intent is not necessary, and I could possibly be tossed in the jail (though if I am under 18, I get a complete free pass, but that's an old topic, see prior articles).
I really wish that the courts were busier solving other more important issues. Are 10 commandments statues on public property a violation and that sort of issue. Instead, they seem intent on clouding other issues, when they normally are supposed to help uncloud the issues.
What a tangled world we live in.
From MSNBC (originally from Associated Press).... Headline is linked.
High court ruling seen favoring older workers
Deliberate bias not needed to win age-discrimination suits
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:54 a.m
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Wednesday for any worker over 40 to allege age discrimination, ruling that employers can be held liable even if they never intended any harm.
The unanimous ruling sides with older police officers in saying they do not have to prove that the city of Jackson, Miss., deliberately tried to discriminate against them, just show that the policies disproportionately harmed them. Nevertheless, the high court dismissed the suit, saying officers did not demonstrate that.
The ruling means that workers age 40 and over — about half the nation’s work force — now have less of a burden to raise their claim in court when suing under federal law.
The Supreme Court already has said the so-called disparate impact claims are allowed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sex, religion or race. On Wednesday, justices said it should be no different for age discrimination, although it ruled the scope of liability is narrower.
“Congress’ decision to limit the coverage” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ... “is consistent with the fact that age, unlike race or other classifications protected by Title VII, not uncommonly has relevance to an individual’s capacity to engage in certain types of employment,” Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s oldest justice, wrote for the majority.
...
At issue was workplace polices that appear neutral but actually disproportionately hurt older workers. Advocates for the aging say few employers would ever be up front about intentionally favoring younger workers, making age bias claims hard to win absent the rare “smoking gun.”
... more at linked article
This is a very strange case. I admit, as I get older, I worry more about age discrimination in employment. Certainly it is easy to be replaced with younger and cheaper. I've had it happen to me already, even though I would be considered by many to be a young man, middle-aged at best. I was replaced (along with several others at my former employer) because I was deemed too expensive (believe me, I was far from over compensated, it's just that the employer was used to paying minimum wage type salaries, and I earned better. Of course, I also normally brought in much higher profits because I produced better than the minimum wage youngsters).
It was obvious to me as I was laid off, along with about a dozen others, that all of the people that were being laid off were higher paid, longer term employees. Even though the company policy was last hired, first fired, that was not what was done. The company was trying to "right size" and save money (without having to cut the CEO and other officer's salaries and compensation packages) and they went for where they saw the most money.
I can't really complain, because I was given a fairly generous severance package (as were the others that were let go, all of which was done to avoid any possible law-suits), but it was painfully obvious to me that I was a victim of age discrimination (I was literally let go even as my department brought in someone that was younger and less well compensated, same for most of the others let go at the time). I still am disappointed in my superiors that didn't pay heed as I warned that I wasn't being kept busy enough and my services should have been sold to customers at lower rates so I could keep bringing in business, but it's all water under the bridge.
Still, I'm torn because I don't normally like to see lawsuits made easier, especially in such a grey area. What the courts seem to be doing is saying that even though a company doesn't intend harm, if they do accidentally harm a group, they can still be held liable. I'm no lawyer. I don't play one on TV. I've been through a little business law in my educational experience (enjoyed it immensely) and one of the things I recall from that experience was that "intent" is normally necessary when trying to determine if someone should be held responsible for an action. The high court now seems to be indicating that isn't necessary at all, and that scares me a bit.
Lets take a hypothetical, and see how this could work. If I go out tomorrow and take a baseball and toss it to my son, I intend for it to be part of a game of catch with my son. Instead of going to my son, because I'm an uncoordinated goof, the ball goes on a different path and strikes a neighbor dead in the face breaking their nose. This is an obvious accident, there was no intent at all, yet I'm responsible. Ok, I can accept the responsibility for it, and would be required to pay medical bills or have my insurance do the same, but could I be tossed in jail because I commited an assault, even though there was no intent? In traditional views of the law, without that intent, there was no crime. But with this new view of the law, it seems intent is not necessary, and I could possibly be tossed in the jail (though if I am under 18, I get a complete free pass, but that's an old topic, see prior articles).
I really wish that the courts were busier solving other more important issues. Are 10 commandments statues on public property a violation and that sort of issue. Instead, they seem intent on clouding other issues, when they normally are supposed to help uncloud the issues.
What a tangled world we live in.