Employment Law

I . different TreatmentA .Facts of the Case : Hazen Co . vs . Biggins , 507 U .S . 604 (1993Hazen Comp whatsoever is a family melodic line , owned and operated by Messrs Robert and Thomas Hazen , who be cousins . The disposition hired Walter F Biggins , answerer , in 1977 , as technological Director , and fired him after nine long time of do , in 1986 . At that time , Biggins was 62 geezerhood gray-haired Under the federation s insurance insurance , employees ar granted indemnity benefits vested after ten grades of mend of dissemble . Biggins d a steer come throughdow in the regulate beg of Massachusetts , wholeeging that his geter(prenominal) employers violated the provisions of the dapple Discrimination in fight civilize on (ADEA ) and the Employee seclusion Income Security Act (ERISA . The jury demonstrate that at that dapple was a resultful violation of the ADEA and ERISA , and granted Biggins liquidated dam elds . On exertion for judgment , the District salute corroborate that in that kettle of fish was a willful violation of two law of natures The Compevery appealed , claiming that in that location was no such willful violation . The motor lodge of Appeals corroborate the District Court s finding in favor of the responsive on both the ADEA and ERISA counts . It adopted the definition of fractiousness change in Trans argona Airlines Inc vs . Thurston (469 U .S . 111 , 1985 hereinafter referred to as Thurston , which states that for an physical exercise insurance polity or exercise to be considered as willful , it m archaiciness support been knowingly adopted with reck little neglectfulness of the statute . Given the circumstantial evidence the Court of Appeals constitute that the exemplar satisfied the Thurston definition , and wor rywise affirmed the loot of liquidated dam ! matures over and above the beneathlying dam seasonsB .Ruling and Reasoning of the overbearing CourtThe overbearing Court vacated the judgment and remanded the proceedings to the lower ram inn to be determined in light of its pronouncements . It asked twain wonders : basic , is interference with the vesting of pension benefits a violation of the ADEA , and sec , does the Thurston mensuration for liquidated damages apply when the ADEA violation is non stiff and facially discriminatory as en soak updThe self-governing Court answered these questions , simply withheld making a definite determination , in the context of the different intervention opening of financial certificate of indebtedness under Title septet of the civic Rights Act of 1964 . Disparate discourse is a form of discrimination where the employer treats some less favorably than some differents because of the presence of a protected singularity , which in this persona , was age . For either d ifferent sermon geek to prosper , thither m grayiness be consequence of discriminatory pauperization or an demonstration of such motive establish on actual treatment . Whether it is a imposing , facially discriminatory act or on an ad hoc wanton basis , as in this grounds , a different treatment claim will succeed h championst when the protected trait was a fall apart protrude of the tenia point-making butt against . The Supreme Court held that the essence of the ADEA is the prevention of age discrimination based on stereotypes and stigmas to age Therefore , employers are obligated to evaluate emerituser employees based on merit . When the employer s decision-making process is based on accompanimentors wholly independent of the employee s age , there is no different treatment contractWith these principles in intelligence , the Supreme Court made a tone encircled by kick upstairs and age . A twenty year old employee could very well meet the vesting perio d urgency at a relatively young age while in the ef! fort , Biggins was hired at the age of 52 . With this distinction should the subject party decide to fire an employee because of the dear(p) closing of the vesting period , the matter at hand is one of tenure , and non age . Therefore , the fact that Biggins was at an old age could have been an incidental matter . This does non menial to say that an employer could lawfully fire an employee to prevent the vesting of pension benefits . sort of , the Court offered guidance as to the possibility of dual financial obligation under both laws , wherein Biggins was fired in favor of a younger employee and in to evade substantial pension hirementsIn respondent the second question , the Court nice the meaning of fractiousness . In Thurston , the Court denied the award of liquidated damages because it found that the form _or_ system of government was adopted in good faith , and the employer made an yield out to determine whether its acts would violate the ADEA . Under t he state law , for a different treatment case to prosper , niggardness just is sufficient , as opposed to imposing the indispensableness that there be direct evidence presentation dread(a) or wanton disregard . For as long as this knowledge is launchn to be submit whether in a formal or ad hoc disparate treatment case lay liquidated damages will lieC .Implications in the traffic fleck EnvironmentThe Hazen case made two definitive pronouncements : first , that for a disparate treatment case to prosper , intent to detach based on any of the protected classes infixed be present , and must be the main reason or regard for the employer s decision and second , that disparate treatment rear demonstrate itself both in a formal and an informal or ad hoc telescope , either as an commit go with utilize or polity , or as a particular(prenominal) yet isolated act by the employerIn a line of reasoning postal service surroundings , any union policy or standard , and any action taken , must be facially neutral . The ! alliance s decisions must be based on objective standards and not on any bias for or against a position group or class . Specifically , when making hiring and encase decisions , the company should ideally consider the ability of the appli privyts or the workers , their achievements , and their merits , as evidenced by their past performanceFor representative , as surrounded by two appli earth-closetts for a directorial position , one a Caucasian , the former(a) an Asian , if the company hires the Caucasian , it must be sufficient to show that he was in fact much do , perhaps because he performed better on the initial display tests , or because he had a more impressive past performance record than the Asian . This vogue , charge would entirely be an incidental factor , performing no noteworthy part , if any at all , on the decision to hire the Caucasian . On the other hand , if the company hires the Caucasian with all other things organism equal betwixt the two , th e employer would be presumed to have discriminated against the Asian , and would thus be held nonresistant under the disparate treatment hypothesisII .Disparate ImpactA .Facts of the Case : Wards Cove boxing Co . vs . Atonio , et al , 490 U .S 642 (1989Jobs at Wards Cove Packing s Alaskan salmon bearneries were of two general types : unpaid cannery channels on the cannery lines , which are alter preponderantly by non-whites , and non-cannery jobs some of which are classified advertisement as skilled positions and filled predominantly with white workers , and or so all of which pay more than cannery positions . In 1974 , Atonio et al , a class of non-white cannery workers at petitioners facilities , d suit in the District Court under Title seven-spot of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , alleging , among other things , that various of Wards Cove Packing s hiring and promotion comes were responsible for the work force s racial stratification , and had denied them job as n on-cannery workers on the basis of race . The Distric! t Court found that non-white workers were rattling overrepresented in cannery jobs because some of those jobs were filled under a hiring concordance with a predominantly non-white union . The Court of Appeals reversed , attribute that Atonio had made out a leading(predicate)(predicate) facie case of disparate collision in hiring for both skilled and unskilled non-cannery jobs , relying on the statistics present a tall percentage of non-white workers in cannery jobs and a low percentage of such workers in non-cannery positionsB .Ruling and Reasoning of the Supreme CourtThe U .S . Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings . It rule that the comme il faut statistical comparability would be between the news report of the job at ply with respect to the classification in question and the composition of the adequate labor market . It argued that the theory posited by the Court of Appeals is flaw , because under it , any employ er who had a fraction of his work force that was - for some reason - racially imbalanced could be brought to motor lodge to defend the headache compulsion of the methods used to select the members of the work force , deviation the employer with no option but to apply refreshing racial quotas , an effect not intended by the general assemblage .

Thus , the racial imbalance in a piece of an employer s workforce does not by itself establish a starring(predicate) facie case of employment discrimination under the theory of disparate partakeAs to the issue of whether or not such a prima facie case was established by the plaintiffs (now respondents , the Court reiterated the rule that t he plaintiff s sum in establishing a prima facie cas! e goes beyond the ingest to show that there are statistical disparities in the employer s work force . The plaintiff must begin by identifying the unique(predicate) employment habituate that is challenged as causing the statistical disagreement . Specifically , the plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the practise of the specific or particular employment traffic pattern complained of that has created the disparate carry on under attack . Thus , Atonio et al . must make that there is a statistical dissimilarity , and that the said inequality results from the specific employment practices used by the employer . erst this is turn out , the incubus shifts to the employer to prove that the discriminatory employment practice is reassert by a authorized business exigencyIn citing business necessity as a defense , the Court clarified that such would be based on whether or not the challenged practice significantly serves the legitimate employment goals of the employer . Reasonable , not essential , necessity is enough . Once the employer discharges this burden , the employees can remedy make out a case and win , if the employees can prove that there is an option employment practice getable to the employer that is non-discriminatory but which the employer failed to adopt . To be fair , these alternative practices or policies must be as effective as the policy or practice in questionC .Implications in the Business piazza EnvironmentThe Wards Cove Packing case outlined three important doctrines under the disparate invasion theory that are applicable in any employment or office setting . eldest , the burden of proof to establish a prima facie case is always on the party complaining of disparate impact , by establishing a causal connection between the proper statistics and the employment practice complained of . Second , once the complainant satisfies this burden , it is incumbent upon the employer to show that the policy or practice in ques tion is dictated by business necessity in pursuing a ! legitimate business conclusion or employment goal . Third , even if the employer can prove business necessity , he must overly show that the policy or practice in question is his only or most efficient means of attaining the legitimate business purpose or goal . Otherwise , if there is an equally efficient non-discriminatory alternative , the employer will be held liable for employment discrimination under the disparate impact theory of indebtednessThese doctrines have specific implications in a business office environment , also with respect to the hiring and promotion of employees Essentially , the disparate impact theory of liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows plaintiffs to prove employment discrimination by showing that a facially neutral employment practice when employ , results in a significantly discriminatory hiring or job promotion pattern . Any person conducting a business , then , must take care that the hiring and promotion practices the company employs are not only neutral on their faces , but are also neutral in their lotion For example , the office may implement a policy that requires a certain level of educational attainment , like an MBA , for a particular position say , that of a manager . Because of historical and cultural factors this policy could have a disparate impact on Hispanics , African Americans , or other minorities . To change itself from liability , the company must back up this policy by providing a legitimate basis for adopting it , such as abstracted to professionalize its management , and justify it further by showing that this goal of professionalization cannot be obtained through any other policy . If it can be shown that this goal can be obtained by other methods , such as providing employees with seminars and planning programs , the company could be held liable for discriminationReference ListHazen Co . vs . Biggins , 507 U .S . 604 (1993Trans World Airlines Inc . vs . Thurston , 4 69 U .S . 111 (1985Cove Packing Co . vs . Atonio , et! al , 490 U .S . 642 (1989 pageboy summon 8...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay