UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE / SOCIAL SECURITY
| Issues and Answers | ||
| May employers give hiring preferences to veterans with service-connected disabilities? | |||
| Summary of State Law Changes | ||
| |||
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
| Human Resources Links | ||
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2007 Edition
Presents a first approach to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summarizing
the basic legislation, demonstrating how the rules apply to particular
employment situations, and exploring practical aspects of employment arrangements
in light of the federal wage and hour law.
A 53-year-old employee who was discharged in a job elimination failed to meet the fourth-prong prima facie requirement for an age bias case in the context of a reduction in force (RIF), concluded the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. His employer selected his quality manager position, among others, for elimination, noting that the job had also been eliminated at another facility. The duties of the employee's position were divided among other workers who were both older and younger than the employee. (Ward v International Paper Co, 8thCir, 90 EPD ¶43,041)
The circuit court rejected the employee's assertion that Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Prods, Inc (78 EPD ¶40,045) implicitly overruled the fourth-prong requirement of additional evidence that age was a factor in an employer's actions in a reduction in force (RIF) age bias case. Reeves did not in any manner speak to prima facie requirements in the RIF context, instructed the court. In a RIF case, since the plaintiff's job is eliminated or redistributed to others, often at least one of whom may be younger, that a younger worker assumed some of the plaintiff's duties does not create an inference that the employment decision was based on unlawful discriminatory criterion. Thus, additional evidence is necessary for a prima facie case.
But the employee failed to meet that requirement. His evidence that 71 percent of the eliminated jobs were held by workers over age 50 was meaningless since he presented no evidence of the number of over age 50 workers before and after the RIF. Further, that a younger worker was promoted to a similarly-titled job two years after the RIF did not create an inference of bias. Nor did a boss from another department's remark that a worker's job was going to someone younger show age bias against the employee. Similarly, there was no evidence of bias in a plant manager's comment that all positions (not employees) considered were eliminated. Thus, summary judgment for his employer was affirmed.
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2008, CCH. All Rights Reserved.
