Tags: Interesting Compare And Contrast Essay TopicsThesis On Safety And HealthUniversity Admission Essay PromptContract Law EssaysHomework BooksParty Plan Business Opportunities
Similar to most labor laws and those under Title VII, the enforcement of the ADEA was the responsibility of the EEOC and followed the same procedures as the previously mentioned laws.Petitioners must first obtain a right a right to sue letter from the EEOC, before filing suit.In order to meet prima facie requirements and shift the burden of proof to the employer the petitioner must show (i) they belong to the protected class, in this case over 40 years of age; (ii) that they applied for and were qualified for the job; (iii) that despite their qualifications they were rejected; (iv) and after their rejection the company continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. American General Assurance Company: One important and recent case filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is the case of Robert R. 4 In 1999, Monaco was 53 years old when he was laid off from his position as Vice President of the Eastern Region of the company. For this paper I will focus only on the age discrimination portion of the case.
In age discrimination cases, similar to other discrimination cases the compliant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case.
Most age discrimination cases use prior case Mc Donnell Douglas Corp. Green, a racial discrimination case from 1973 as a comparison in meeting prima facie requirements. In the case Monaco is laid off from his position as Vice President of the Eastern Region for American General Assurance Company after their purchase of United States Life and upon a companywide decision to reduce their workforce as a result of eliminating a line of business that was not profitable. Penny call center employee files suit against the company claiming that she was passed over on multiple promotions as a result of her age and sex.
16 A two part test is used to determine if the ADEA was meant to abrogate state rights under the 11th amendment.
1) Did congress intend to authorize suits against individual states?
Finally I will conclude with opinions on the effectiveness of the law.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) was put in place to prevent the discrimination of aging workers by employers, by providing protective class status to both men and women in the workplace over the age of 40 years old.The court found that therefore she had successfully transferred the burden of proof to the defense.12 However the defense argued that they had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting the plaintiff, and the court agreed transferring the burden back to the plaintiff to establish further that the company’s decision was made primarily on her age.In the case three sets of petitioners filed suit against the Florida Board of Regents claiming discrimination on the bases of their age.One of the cases was dismissed under the basis of states’ rights under the 11th amendment.Johnson after a secretary of labor statistical report that indicated that age discrimination for older workers was problem.Analysis showed that while unemployment for older workers was less than for younger workers, the period of time that the unemployed over a certain age remained unemployed was significantly longer than those in younger age brackets.While this form of discrimination is technically prohibited by statute, it is also by far the most difficult to enforce.Age discrimination differs from most discrimination laws in the fact that it must be proven that age was the dominant factor as opposed to simply being a factor.2) Did congress in spite of their intent do so with a valid constitutional authority? Green, case is often referenced in age discrimination cases for its use of the prima facie burden of proof transfer it is important to understand the origins and story behind this case.The court found that while it is clear in the laws language that they intended for local and state governments to be included should suits arise, the language in the 14th amendment specifically section 5 does not specifically name protected classes and therefore this is left to be determined by the courts. The surprising factor about this case is that the case has no bases in age discrimination.