I noticed today that activist judges on the Supreme Court overturned previous standards for evaluating discrimination complaints. They have now passed the burden of proof in age discrimination complaints to the person suing. Even though the person may demonstrate that age was a factor in their suit, they have now shifted the burden of proof and made it extremely difficult to win such a case.

This deviates from previous rulings and establishes a new policy by judges who wish their views to replace that of our elected representatives.

Originally Posted by Hadleyite

I noticed today that activist judges on the Supreme Court overturned previous standards for evaluating discrimination complaints. They have now passed the burden of proof in age discrimination complaints to the person suing. Even though the person may demonstrate that age was a factor in their suit, they have now shifted the burden of proof and made it extremely difficult to win such a case.

This deviates from previous rulings and establishes a new policy by judges who wish their views to replace that of our elected representatives.

For those interested in this case, the SCOTUS decision can be seen at http://supreme.justia.com/us/557/08-441/ and all of the briefs presented to SCOTUS are at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...09.shtml#gross .

The Court's decision affirmed an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling with regards to what Congress stated in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act showed that Congress intended that the plaintiff in such cases had to provide direct evidence to show that age was the "but for" cause of a negative employment decision.

Man, lawyer talk. I'm still confused about disgraced ex-president Clinton's statement " It depends on what the definition of "is"....is...."

Originally Posted by Keedy

Man, lawyer talk. I'm still confused about disgraced ex-president Clinton's statement " It depends on what the definition of "is"....is...."

He really didn't say anything that most married men "caught after the act" don't say. It's just that he was more articulate in his "but, honey...."

Did the SCOTUS decision pertain only to litigation in federal courts? Most age discrimination suits occur in state courts. And I'm not sure that SCOTUS recent decision makes much of a difference in state court proceedings.

In Illinois, as an example, the burden of proof was that of the plaintiff in Illinois for decades. Employers could take any action they wished with regard to employees, but it was up to the plaintiff who thought he had been harmed to prove that the employer's action was discriminatory based on age.

As an example, if an employer fired all the employees who were the highest paid, or who had the effect of increasing employer-paid health insurance premiums, that would be perfectly legal. The fact that almost all those employees would tend to be the oldest is immaterial unless the plaintiffs--the older workers--could prove that the management actually made their decision based on age. The plaintiff would have to find a memo or get someone to testify that the layoffs were based on age, not other factors. That's an almost impossible burden for the employee who feels he has been harmed to meet.

I guess I'm not certain how big a change this is in the federal courts.

Don't really know anything about the law but I do like to think I have an ounce of common sense. If I was to trim a payroll I would have to look at the highest ones first, right? Reason would say that it takes time to work your way up the ladder and therefore a person naturally increases in age. Therefore if you trim your payroll you are going to get a higher percentage of people in the older age bracket, right? So therefore conscientiously or unconscientiously you are discriminating against older people. Sure, you can say that a few young people get paid handsomely but the percentage is smaller, right?
I have seen it and have been a victim of age discrimination but like you said it is hard to prove and the companies have the best $$$ lawyers at their disposal.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Did the SCOTUS decision pertain only to litigation in federal courts? Most age discrimination suits occur in state courts. And I'm not sure that SCOTUS recent decision makes much of a difference in state court proceedings.

In Illinois, as an example, the burden of proof was that of the plaintiff in Illinois for decades. Employers could take any action they wished with regard to employees, but it was up to the plaintiff who thought he had been harmed to prove that the employer's action was discriminatory based on age.

As an example, if an employer fired all the employees who were the highest paid, or who had the effect of increasing employer-paid health insurance premiums, that would be perfectly legal. The fact that almost all those employees would tend to be the oldest is immaterial unless the plaintiffs--the older workers--could prove that the management actually made their decision based on age. The plaintiff would have to find a memo or get someone to testify that the layoffs were based on age, not other factors. That's an almost impossible burden for the employee who feels he has been harmed to meet.

I guess I'm not certain how big a change this is in the federal courts.

When a person files suit based solely on a federal statute (as this case was), it must originate in the federal court system. States also have comparable laws. When a case could be filed either as violating either the state or federal statute, the plaintiff sees which has the least burden of proof (if any at all) on the plaintiff, and which provides the greater recovery. Then, the case is filed in the court charged with enforcing that particular statute.

There are a couple of major Human Resources associations which provide tons of guidance to employers on how to document everything from all kinds of discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act , and other claims. The outcome of this case was really not a big surprise, based on the single question that was before SCOTUS to answer (Must a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case?) and the text of the ADEA.

At first, when I read the title, I thought this was about the liberals on the court. But after reading the link, provided by SteveZ, its really about the conservatives on the court. It seems consistent with another ruling, regarding a women who was paid less men doing the same job for years. When she found out she filed suit only to have the Supreme Court say she should have found out about this earlier and because she didn't she lost.

I think everyone knew what they were getting with Alito but Roberts is much more conservitive than was known.

Originally Posted by cologal

At first, when I read the title, I thought this was about the liberals on the court. But after reading the link, provided by SteveZ, its really about the conservatives on the court. It seems consistent with another ruling, regarding a women who was paid less men doing the same job for years. When she found out she filed suit only to have the Supreme Court say she should have found out about this earlier and because she didn't she lost.

I think everyone knew what they were getting with Alito but Roberts is much more conservitive than was known.

Can you please provide a name or reference to the case you mention. I'd like to look it up.

Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/wa...=all&emc=eta-1

Originally Posted by Taj44

Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/wa...=all&emc=eta-1

Thanks for the link...that is the one I referenced.

Am I correct that this was not a Supreme Court ruling but simply a matter of President Obama signing legislation to change the law that the Supreme Court had previously ruled on ?

Originally Posted by cologal

Thanks for the link...that is the one I referenced.

Thanks! Very interesting case. FYI:
1. The SCOTUS decision (with dissent) is at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1074.pdf
2 The petitioner's reply brief is at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...ionerReply.pdf
3. The respondent's brief is at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...espondents.pdf
4. If you Google "05-1074 amicus briefs" they all appear.

The arguments were interesting, and trying to review them objectively is difficult, as there are obvious underlying self-interests in the amicus briefs beyond the case itself.

Is it fair to summarize this case and the new "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" as follows?

Ledbetter filed an EEOC action against Goodyear following her retirement. She alleged unequal pay because of sex discrimination. Goodyear never really argued that discrimination didn't occur. Rather, they argued that Ledbetter had no standing to file a claim because the time limitations for filing had passed.

Initially, both the EEOC and a jury ruled in her favor. A federal appeals court later threw out her claim, limiting her lawsuit to discrimination that may have happened in the six months prior to her initial complaint with the EEOC. A three-judge panel also dismissed the pay discrimination allegations during that 180-day window. The case was then appealed to SCOTUS where in a narrowly divided 5-4 ruling, the high court sided with Goodyear, concluding that Ledbetter had only a federally mandated 180-day window following the initial incident of discriminatory pay in which to make her initial claim.

After the SCOTUS decision eliminated any further legal options, Ledbetter began to lobby Congress and the White House to change the time period which dictated when such claims could be filed. She argued that a plaintiff like herself should have the right to file a complaint to the government within 180 days of their most recent paycheck, as opposed to within 180 days of their first unfair paycheck. Proponents of the legislation argued that the fault in the original enabling legislation was that an employer merely needed to hide unfair pay practices for a few months before being able to continue them, without penalty, forever. They argued that the rule placed an unfair burden on employees, who may not discover discriminatory pay practices until after their right to make a claim had already passed.

Ledbetter and her supporters made little headway with the Bush White House. As the case gained notoriety, it became an issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign. During the 2008 campaign, the proposed Ledbetter Act proved to be a significant point of contention between then-Senator Barack Obama and Republican nominee Senator John McCain. Obama emphasized what he called the plan's benefits to working women, while McCain criticized it as a boon for trial lawyers.

When Obama won the Presidency, Congressional Democrats put a reversal of the high court's ruling near the top of their agenda. The law was the first one passed by the 111th Congress and the first signed by the new President. The law was retroactive and permitted Ledbetter, or other employees with similar circumstances, to re-file her claims with the EEOC, which had approved it initially, many years ago.
-------------------------------------------------
In this case, it appears that the lower court judge and jury were "activist", ruling for Ledbetter in an obvious violation of the then-controlling legislation and federal rules. Both the federal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS ruled purely on the law, even though there were dissenters at the SCOTUS level who agreed with the unfairness of the controlling legislation.

Fair summary?

I was horrified when I read the original SCOTUS decision. Thankfully the Democrats are in and the new legislation has been passed - a victory for working women. I have no doubt that had a Republican won the White House, we would still be looking at this discriminatory practice.