Up on Fortune magazine’s column “Practically Speaking” is the following question:
Frank has been with us for more than 20 years. He works in the warehouse and has done a good job for us. I like him. But, to be honest, for the work he performs I could easily replace him someone younger and …
In Tuesday’s The New York Times, an article (that, as of Monday evening was one of the lead pieces on the NYTimes.com website) argues that age discrimination continues to exist in society and that it is hitting the baby boomers particularly hard. (Indeed, the article’s tag is “for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive”.)
I do not challenge the assertion
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court clarified in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, that the burden of proof in age discrimination cases. So where does that leave the so-called "mixed-motive" analysis that has frankly confused many employers (and their attorneys) over the years?
My colleague, Robert Mitchell, does a good job explaining the
Leave it to the Supreme Court to come out with a decision on discrimination while I’m attending the ABA Presidential Summit on Diversity (which I’ll be live-tweeting and blogging from starting on Friday).
So, while I’ve been tied up for most of the day, the news sites and employment law blogs have been a buzz
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gross v. FBL Financial Group, one of the several employment cases on the docket for this term. For full background, the SCOTUS Blog is a great resource and I discussed it in an earlier post here. From an employee perspective, the Employee Rights Post shares some interesting
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services. Inc. putting the issue of "Whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to 
obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case" squarely before the court (H/T ScotusBlog).
The case, arising out of a