We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.


Refine your search

Content type


Firm name


258 results found


Squire Patton Boggs | USA | 4 Apr 2017

Supreme Court Says Appellate Courts Must Defer To District Court Decisions Regarding Enforceability of EEOC Subpoenas

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) bestows upon the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the right to subpoena records


Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | United Kingdom | 9 Aug 2010

Age discrimination: Court of Appeal relaxes test for justifying a retirement age

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.


Squire Patton Boggs | United Kingdom | 3 Aug 2010

Default retirement age through the looking glass

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.


Steptoe & Johnson LLP | United Kingdom | 27 Jul 2010

Jurisdiction - unfair dismissal claim

Mr Heneghan started work with YKK in August 1988.


Fenwick & West LLP | USA | 14 Jul 2010

Court revives age discrimination claim, finding "me too" evidence admissible

In an unpublished decision, a California appellate court revived a plaintiff's claim for age discrimination, finding admissible his proffered "me too" evidence of a corporate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.


Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP | USA | 24 Mar 2010

Key decisions from the Supreme Court

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.


DMH Stallard LLP | United Kingdom | 19 Mar 2010

Justification of discriminatory pay protection schemes

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).


Moses & Singer LLP | USA | 16 Feb 2010

EEOC attacks law firm retirement again

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.


Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | United Kingdom | 4 Dec 2009

Age discrimination: pay scheme not automatically justified by union approval

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.


Mills & Reeve LLP | United Kingdom | 30 Nov 2009

Red-circling and age discrimination

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.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...