Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Courts rethink ADEA disparate-impact claims; recent Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases question the viability of impact theory

Article Abstract:

A number of federal appeals courts have in 1996 and 1997 rejected or questioned the disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The US Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Hazen Paper Co v. Biggins that employee dismissal decisions made for a nonage reason that may correlate with age do not amount to intentional age discrimination was the catalyst for the change from the tacit acceptance of the disparate impact theory. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 also broke the statutory alliance between the ADEA and Title VII.

Author: Klein, Jeffrey S., Morrison, Ross E.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
Age discrimination

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Recent multimillion-dollar settlements may cause employers to avoid hiring women and minorities for less desirable jobs to improve the statistical picture

Article Abstract:

Companies with disproportionate numbers of minorities or women in less desirable or entry-level positions are increasingly vulnerable to charges of discrimination rooted in illogic. Recent agreements by Lucky Stores, Shoney's, and other employers to pay as much as $100 million or more reflect the appeal of the argument that if women or minorities are over-represented in one area, they should be equally over-represented everywhere. While the Supreme Court has rejected that logic, juries may be swayed by it.

Author: Scanlan, James
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Forecasts and trends, Employee selection

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Training becomes important step to avoid liability; high court's recent rulings on discrimination and harassment make prevention policy crucial

Article Abstract:

Ways for employers to avoid Title VII liability and punitive damages in employment discrimination suits are discussed. Supreme Court rulings imply that employers must have training policies to prevent discrimination and harassment cllaims.

Author: McLaughlin, Ellen, Merchasin, Carol
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 2001
United States

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Employment discrimination
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: The impact of after-acquired evidence in employment discrimination cases after McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company
  • Abstracts: Court KOs Microsoft with Tunney Act; plus some automation suggestions for the counsel of the Simpson affair. Breaking up is hard to do: some legal pros propose their own remedies in the Microsoft ruling
  • Abstracts: Small-handles, big impacts: when should the National Environmental Policy Act require an environmental impact statement?
  • Abstracts: In memoriam: Warren E. Burger. Judicial tendencies in statutory construction: differing views on the role of the judge
  • Abstracts: Web-based technology is not just for insiders; knowledge bases developed for law firm intranets are readily adapted as valuable extranets
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.