The 7th Circuit’s recent opinion in Martino v. MCI (No. 08-2405, 7th Cir., 2009) represents the first opportunity for that court to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s recently clarified standard for determining liability in disparate-treatment cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Together, the two decisions make it harder for employees to win some age discrimination lawsuits.
In June 2009, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court made it more difficult for employees to win age discrimination cases by holding that an employee “… must prove that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse decision.”
That’s different from what employees suing under Title VII must prove. Those employees need to show only that their protected status was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision.
The 7th Circuit case
Guy Martino was hired by MCI when he was 54 years old as...(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Union members can't use 'Public policy' violation as basis for retaliation claim
- Balance need for racial diversity against threat of reverse discrimination lawsuit
- Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Act
- Must we have a smoking section onsite?