Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) bestows upon the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the right to subpoena records
Employers seeking to justify the use of a retirement age may have more latitude than previously thought, as they will not need to show a public interest objective.
Regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 allows an employer to retire an employee compulsorily at age 65 without that employee having any of the usual age discrimination or unfair dismissal protections.
Mr Heneghan started work with YKK in August 1988.
In an unpublished decision, a California appellate court revived a plaintiff's claim for age discrimination, finding admissible his proffered "me too" evidence of a corporate plan to drive out older managers and replace them with younger, less costly personnel.
In Ricci v DeStefano the Supreme Court acknowledged that its task was to provide "guidance to employers" - but the challenge is figuring out exactly what that guidance is.
The EAT have considered the question of objective justification in an age discrimination claim and the sort of factors employers should be considering when justifying age discrimination Pulham and others v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2009 (EAT).
Several years ago, the controversial issue of mandatory retirement of law firm partners reached the Seventh Circuit, which rendered an equivocal decision resulting in an expensive settlement for Sidley Austin LLP.
Employers wishing to retain a discriminatory pay scheme are well advised to seek union approval for the scheme, but this will not in itself guarantee that the scheme is justified.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently assessed whether the steps taken by a local authority to dismantle its knowledge and experience scheme complied with the age equality legislation.