Disparate impact occurs when a policy impacts a protected group more harshly. The Eleventh Circuit siding with the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Circuit do not permit ADEA disparate impact claims. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuit disagree.
Should a jury hear whether the same type of discrimination happened to another worker? This “me too” testimony may be heard when appropriate. The US Supreme Court decided that there should be no brightline test.
An employee of a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation sued the subsidiary (her employer) and the foreign parent using the single employer doctrine. The ADEA does not permit suing the foreign parent.
A supervisor said he wanted to fire his property manager and replace the 60-something with “someone younger and more endowed.” The age discrimination suit was dismissed because the employer would have fired the property manager regardless of her age because she was planning to steal a dishwasher.
Sidley & Austin required many partners to retire and demoted others to expand opportunities for younger attorneys. The EEOC argues that the demoted employees were really employees because they did not help manage the law firm. The EEOC is now investigating whether the firm violated the ADEA.
The Seventh Circuit used an economic realities/degree of control test to find that a company could be deemed a joint employer under Title VII and the ADEA. The fact that a company provided health insurance and authorized pay raises, in light of a lost personnel file and notwithstanding the fact that another entity issued paychecks and a w-2, entitled plaintiff to a jury trial on the issue of who is the employer.
A 72-year old applicant alleged that he was not hired because his age. After he filed an EEOC charge, he was offered the job. He turned it down. The Eleventh Circuit found that by turning down the job, plaintiff lost any claim for damages and equitable relief.