"the law, said it does allow recovery of damages in "disparate impact" cases - that is, in instances in which the effect on older workers is unintentional - as well as "disparate treatment" cases, when the effect is clearly deliberate"
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
This is a very narrow ruling that is intended to address the practice of laying off older workers who often have greater tenure at a job and, thus, make more in wages, and replacing them with younger workers without benefits. When an employer says "I'm going to fire some of my staff," he could be held liable if a disproportionate number of such fired staff were over 40. Of course, the Court also said that a plaintiff would have to show that the reasons for this disproportionate impact were not rational (cutting costs, for instance, would be rational in may circumstances).
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15721 posts, RR: 48 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
" he could be held liable if a disproportionate number of such fired staff were over 40."
That opens up the Pandora's box of what "disproportionate" means.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15721 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
