? 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), but the managers lacked adequate training to assess ADEA compliance. KAPL further instructed its managers to perform a disparate impact analysis for protected classes of employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. Management let go employees scoring lowest on the matrix until staffing was reduced to meet budgetary constraints. This method required managers to assign points to employees in their groups based on performance, flexibility, criticality of skills, and time with the company. KAPL instructed its managers in the "matrix" method of evaluating employee performance to select employees for layoff. For fiscal year 1996, a reduction in the Lab's operating budget required an "involuntary reduction in force" ("IRIF") resulting in the firing of thirty-one employees, thirty of whom were over forty years old. The Lab is a government initiative funded by a joint program of the Navy and the Department of Energy, and is operated by KAPL Inc. ("KAPL"), a Lockheed Martin company. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (the "Lab") draws its workforce of 2,600 from the small upstate New York towns of Niskayuna and New Milton. In determining where the burden rests, the Supreme Court's decision will impact the nature of future employee litigation under the ADEA, shape the strategies for a successful reduction in force, and determine what deference is due the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations interpreting the ADEA. The employee-plaintiffs disagree, maintaining that the "reasonable factors other than age" harbor in the ADEA statute is a traditional affirmative defense on which the employer-defendants bear the burden of proof. While upholding the disparate impact theory, City of Jackson also requires the touchstone of the analysis to be whether employers considered "reasonable factors other than age," which the Second Circuit determined was a burden of persuasion to be borne by the plaintiffs. 621 et seq., when the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Smith v. The plaintiffs had prevailed at trial and on appeal on a disparate impact theory of illegal age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Supreme Court to overturn the Second Circuit's finding for the defendants. In this case, a hair's breadth of analytical difference is worth almost $6 million dollars, as the plaintiffs, former employees at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory ("KAPL") ask the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |