Quote:
View: [ANCHOR]Top court rules for workers in age bias case[/ANCHOR] (link)
Source: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com)Abstract: "The employer, not the employee, has the burden of proof on the issue of whether an employment action like the layoffs was done for reasons other than age"
Quote:
Top court rules for workers in age bias case
Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:42pm EDT
by James Vicini
from Reuters, http://www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for workers to win age discrimination lawsuits against employers, in a case about older workers who were laid off.
The employer, not the employee, has the burden of proof on the issue of whether an employment action like the layoffs was done for reasons other than age, the high court ruled in a defeat for a Lockheed Martin Corp unit.
By a 7-1 vote, the Supreme Court's ruling makes it harder and costlier for employers to defend themselves in lawsuits claiming age bias in the workplace.
The court ruled against Lockheed Martin, which owns the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in upstate New York.
Of the 31 workers laid off in 1996, 30 were at least 40 years old. Twenty-eight of them sued under the federal law barring discrimination based on age.
The justices reversed a ruling by a federal appeals court in New York that had sided with the lab.
Writing the court's majority opinion, Justice David Souter acknowledged that requiring employers to persuade judges that their employment actions were reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend against such lawsuits.
Souter said the court has to read the age discrimination law the way that Congress wrote it. The federal government had supported the workers in the case.
Karen Harned, executive director of a legal center for small, independent businesses, said the ruling will make it much easier for employees to be successful in discrimination cases against employers.
|
|
I remember in my industrial organizational psychology class that studies had shown that not only did "senior" members (employees having worked for a specific employer in a specific field and position longer than most) not only produced better work than their younger, and sometimes considered "better" colleagues (currently educated on present topics), but worked far harder than the newbs.
I feel this to be true for a few of reasons. One, fresh out of college students have little more on their mind than finding a job that pays to best. They are less likely to act loyal to the company than a staff member that has put years into a single company. Two, senior staff know the ropes of a specific company better than any new person, whom must be trained and groomed to fit into the new business practices that certainly were not precisely covered in his senior year of college. Three, I felt the best studying I ever did was not behind a desk taking notes, but next to a professional teaching me their wisdom that they have acquired over the years. Having studying in Germany and realizing that the manner of apprenticeship is still very much alive and used makes me feel good.
I think this is a good thing. Others argue with me that this helps stimulate new jobs, innovations, etc, etc. I think we are just making it harder to be old.