Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Essay example -- Anti Discri

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory The 2nd U.S. Circuit address of Appeals held that those business practices that shake had a disparate impact effect on the older workers are now considered to be actionable under one subject field anti-discrimination law (Hamblett, 2004). The case does reaffirm a second Circuit precedent that had been set but which is at odds with what a majority of federal courts mother held. The appeals court supported the root that a lay finish plan had been properly brought under the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) although the company did not have the intention of discriminating. The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jurys findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a differen t method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the eccentric had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while well-nigh of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not obdurate the appropriate white plague of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected. It seems that the major iss ue here is whether or not one can use age as a factor in terms of discrimination when the discrimination was not intentional. If for example it turns out that the people who are laid off are over the age of 40, even though no malicious intent is discovered, it still may be construed as age discrimination. This issue has been about controversial for some time, as most litigants in age discrimination lawsuits realize that they ... ...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides bully value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substanc e abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior. ReferencesHamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. hot York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http//www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 02749. Argued October 8, 2003Decided April 2, 2003. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http//supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-749.ZS.html