In a decision that may have significant ramifications any time a business seeks to reorganize or streamline its workforce, the United States Supreme Court declared yesterday in Meacham et. al v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory aka KAPL, Inc. ("Meacham") that when an employer engages in an action that has a disparate impact on older workers and a lawsuit ensues, it is the employer who will bear the burden of proving (a) that the decision was based on a factor other than age, and (b) that the decision was "reasonable."
[Full Story]

The United States Supreme Court held yesterday that pension status can turn, in part, on an employee's age without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). At issue in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC was a Kentucky state pension plan that provides disability benefits to state and county employees who hold hazardous positions. The Court found the plan does not discriminate against older workers even though it treats some employees (those who become disabled but are not otherwise eligible for retirement) more generously than others (those who become disabled only after becoming eligible for retirement on the basis of age). Under the plan, employees who become disabled before standard retirement receive credit for "imputed" years of employment not actually worked; employees disabled after standard retirement age do not receive such credit.
[Full Story]

In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Stevens, the United States Supreme Court held that a California law that prohibits employers who receive state grants or program funds from assisting, promoting or deterring union organizing was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). This means that the California law is unenforceable.
[Full Story]

June 17, 2008
United States Supreme Court Confirms that Employees May Pursue Retaliation Claims Under Section 1981
President Bush Signs Law Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination
Federal Contractors Required to Use E-Verify System
California Supreme Court To Address Whether "Forfeiture" Provision in a Voluntary Incentive Compensation Plan Violates California's Labor Code

April 10, 2008
Department of Homeland Security Explains, But Does Not Revise, Final Rule on Social Security No-Match Letters And Notices of Suspect Documents
Supreme Court Sheds Light On What Constitutes A "Charge" Under The ADEA