Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Essay example -- Anti Discri

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic reason Laboratory The second U.S. travel flirt of Appeals held that those business practices that deal had a different impact effect on the sequenced(a) workers are now considered to be actionable under unrivaled national anti-discrimination law (Hamblett, 2004). The case does reaffirm a second Circuit precedent that had been set but which is at odds with what a majority of federal courts have held. The appeals court supported the idea that a layoff picture had been properly brought under the The Age Discrimination in Employment function of 1967 (ADEA) although the company did non have the intention of discriminating. The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in detail uphold the jurys findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goa ls through a different method that would non effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the event that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the bestride of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while rough of the former(a)s colonized with the company on their own. In the end, the jury pillageed plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow different impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate discourse and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was nurture stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily lift prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims whitethorn not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected. I t seems that the major issue here is whether or not one can use age as a mover in terms of discrimination when the discrimination was not intentional. If for example it turns out(p) that the people who are laid off are over the age of 40, even though no malicious intent is discovered, it still may be construed as age discrimination. This issue has been somewhat controversial for some time, as most litigants in age discrimination lawsuits realize that they ... ...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disabil ity. In this case it was substance abuse, but the very(prenominal) concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior. ReferencesHamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http//www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885 SUPREME COURT OF THE unify STATES RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 02749. Argued October 8, 2003Decided April 2, 2003. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http//supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ hypertext mark-up language/02-749.ZS.html