Justices Let Age Bias Lawsuit Move Ahead
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court yesterday gave the benefit of the doubt to a FedEx worker who claimed age discrimination, and said her case should not be thrown out because of mistakes made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The court ruled 7 to 2 that Patricia Kennedy's suit could move forward, even though her employer had not been notified by the EEOC that Kennedy and others had made charges against it, as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires.
The act says that a formal charge must be made with the agency before a lawsuit can be filed, and that in that interim, the EEOC is to notify the company, investigate the claim and seek conciliation between the employer and employee before lawyers and judges become involved.
At oral argument, it became clear that the form Kennedy filed with the EEOC sometimes was considered by the agency to constitute a formal charge, and sometimes not. Justices criticized the government for the inconsistency, and it responded that it is changing its policies.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion said that because of the lack of clarity on the part of EEOC, "both sides lost the benefits" of the informal dispute resolution process, and it again criticized the agency.
But the majority said that the form and documents Patricia Kennedy filed could be considered a formal charge and that she should be allowed to proceed with her lawsuit.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying the court's "malleability" was wrong.
"Given the court's utterly vague criteria, whatever the agency later decides to regard as a charge is a charge -- and the statutorily required notice to the employer and conciliation process will be evaded in the future as it has been in this case," wrote Thomas, who was head of the EEOC for a time in the 1980s.
The decision was the court's second in two days regarding the age discrimination statute, both of them rather narrowly drawn. The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
Related listings
-
Exxon Valdez runs aground at Supreme Court
Lawyer Blogs 02/27/2008The Supreme Court is considering whether to prevent victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster from collecting a $2.5 billion judgment, nearly 19 years after the tanker dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska waters.In the case being argued Wednesday,...
-
Court Decision Could Affect Wis. Appeal
Lawyer Blogs 02/27/2008An accusatory letter penned by a woman who turned up dead ultimately helped a jury convict her husband. But it also could be what gets him a new trial in the nearly 10-year-old case.A jury convicted Mark Jensen last week of killing Julie Jensen on De...
-
Supreme Court rules in age discrimination case
Lawyer Blogs 02/26/2008[##_1L|1195644005.jpg|width="120" height="118" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court has left the door open for workers in age discrimination cases to present supporting evidence from other employees at a company. In a unanimous decision Tuesday, the justices...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.