The curious case of disparate impact under the adea: Reversing the theory's development into obsolescence
AbstractThe recognition of disparate impact liability in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. has been heralded as “[t]he single most important Title VII decision, both for the development of the law and in its impact on the daily lives of American workers.” The curious thing about disparate impact since becoming a theory of recovery under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), however, is that its availability to victims of age discrimination has narrowed in scope. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory recently reaffirmed application of the theory to the ADEA, it also secured its practical obsolescence as a valid means of establishing liability for age discrimination. Faced with troubling economic times and an aging American workforce, the importance of providing more than just lip service to these claims is apparent now more than ever. In reaffirming the theory’s availability the Court clarified a central issue for ADEA disparate impact plaintiffs by placing the burden of proof for articulating the reasonable factor other than age (RFOA) defense squarely upon the defendant. Unfortunately for victims of age discrimination, the standard emerging from the Court’s earlier recognition of ADEA disparate impact claims in Smith v. City of Jackson has already made overcoming the defense a nearly impossible task.
Similar books and articles
Understanding Futility: Why Trust and Disparate Impact Matter as Much as What Works.Greg Loeben - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):38 – 39.
The Many Mendelsohn 'Me Too' Missteps: An Alliterative Response to Professor Rubinstein.Paul M. Secunda - manuscript
Some Reflections on Age Discrimination, Referees' Retirement Ages and European Sports (Law).David McArdle - unknown
Putting the Age of Criminal and Civil Liability Into Context: A Dialogue Between Law with Psychology.Nuno Ferreira - unknown
Limiting Gebser: Institutional Liability for Non-Harassment Sex Discrimination Under Title IX.David S. Cohen - manuscript
Why Should We Be Concerned About Disparate Impact?Ronald A. Lindsay - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):23 – 24.
The Impact of Legal Age Discrimination on Women in Professional Occupations.Nancy B. Kurland - 2001 - Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):331-348.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads