Supremes Make Age-Bias Suits Harder to Prove

Ruling puts burden of proof on workers

By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff

Posted Jun 19, 2009 9:20 AM CDT

(Newser) – Workers who sue their employers for age discrimination will find their cases much harder to win under a Supreme Court ruling issued yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reports. The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that it is up to employees who believe they were fired or demoted because of their age to prove their age was the deciding factor.

The decision—which applies only to individual workers—reverses a long-standing rule. Previously, the onus was on employers, who had to prove that they had a legitimate reason for the firing apart from age. The AARP, civil rights groups, and the dissenting judges heavily criticized the decision, which comes amid a sharp increase in the number of age bias suits reaching the courts.

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (2)]

Classical music critic Donald Rosenberg of The Plain Dealer stands in front of the paper's downtown offices after filing a lawsuit claiming he was fired due to age discrimination. (AP Photo/David Richard)

"The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision," Justice Clarence Thomas said. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder, File)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

This is a significant and marked change. It imposes a difficult burden on the employee. You are not going to have an employer stand up and announce, 'I'm discriminating against you because of your age.'
- Diana Hoover, a corporate defense lawyer

The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.
- Justice Clarence Thomas

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

To report an error on this story, notify our editors.

More Newser Stories

Colbert Making Supreme Court Look Stupid

Dahlia Lithwick says court is ill-equipped to deal with comedy

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court has had plenty of powerful foils over the years, like Andrew Jackson and FDR, "but in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert," writes Dahlia Lithwick at Slate . With his super PAC, Colbert has made every part of the Citizens United ruling "look utterly ridiculous. And the court, which has no access to cameras, no press arm, and no discernible comedic powers, has had to stand by and take it on the chin." More»

Supreme Court Bans Warrantless GPS Tracking

Obama administration had argued that tracking cars didn't constitute a search

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the government must obtain a warrant before secretly affixing a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car. The case stemmed from an incident in which the FBI placed a tracker on a DC drug dealer's car, with the Obama administration arguing that Americans don't have a right to privacy while moving in public, Wired explains. The administration told the justices that it could track their cars as well if it wanted. More»

Supreme Court Axes Texas Electoral Map

They say judge strayed too far from legislature's vision

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court threw out a federal court's draft of a Texas electoral map, saying it strayed too far from the one drawn by the state's Republican legislature. The decision, which was issued by the court as a whole, rather than signed by an individual justice, is a near-term win for Republicans, likely guaranteeing them a friendly 2012 map, Politico reports. More»

Death Row Inmate Won't Die Over Mail Glitch

Supreme Court gives him a rare second chance to appeal

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court is making a rare exception that could save the life of a death row inmate in Alabama, reports the Los Angeles Times . The court decreed that Cory Maples deserves a new hearing even though he missed the filing deadline—because his lawyers sort of forgot about him. The weird chain of events began when Maples got convicted of murdering two people in 1997. Two lawyers from the big-name New York firm of Sullivan & Cromwell volunteered to work on his appeal. (They say he had lousy attorneys who failed to tell the jury that Maples was drunk at the time of the shootings.) More»

Actress Suing IMDB Reveals Her Name

It's Junie Hoang, who's been in small-budget flicks

(NEWSER) - Remember the anonymous actress suing IMDB for revealing that her age is 40? She is anonymous no more, notes the Hollywood Reporter . It's Huong Hoang, who mostly goes by the stage name of Junie Hoang. Never heard of her? She has been working fairly regularly, but in small-budget movies such as Gingerbread Man 3 and Hoodrats 2. Hoang, who is suing the movie database for $1 million because she says it made her vulnerable to Hollywood age discrimination, had to reveal her name for the suit to go forward. Her IMDB profile is here . More»

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most thought-provoking and entertaining stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Partnering with: Slate

View Newser on the mobile website

Supremes Make Age-Bias Suits Harder to Prove