Involvement in Legal Precedent
KAPL was involved in a precedent-setting age discrimination lawsuit. In June 2008, a 7-1 decision of the United States Supreme Court placed the burden on all employers to prove that a layoff affecting older workers is based on reasonable factors other than age, reversing a lower court that placed the burden on dismissed employees.
The long running case, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab (Docket 06-1505), originated from downsizing at the lab in 1996 that resulted in the termination of 31 employees. The Lab instituted a voluntary buyout plan but could not attain the desired staff reduction so it developed a matrix to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility and criticality of their jobs, and added points for years of service. Nevertheless, all but one of the dismissed were over the age of 40. As a result, 28 persons sued in January 1997 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A jury found for the employees in December 2000 and judgment was rendered in 2002. The Lab appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit but the judgment was upheld in 2004. KAPL appealed higher and while its petition to the US Supreme Court was pending, a related case (Smith v. City of Jackson ) caused the Court in 2006 to vacate the judgment in favor of the defendants (Meacham II). In return, the 17 remaining plaintiffs (9 had settled their claims) petitioned the US Supreme Court which ultimately ruled in their favor on technical grounds. The case was remanded to the 2nd Circuit Court where the original judgment was finally reinstated in 2009 (Meacham III).
The importance of this case stems from employers' actions or policies that appear reasonable and neutral on its face but nevertheless have a disparate impact on older workers. In the majority opinion, Justice Souter wrote, “There is no denying that putting employers to the work of persuading fact-finders that their choices are reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend,” but that was an issue that Congress should address.
Read more about this topic: Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Famous quotes containing the words involvement in, involvement, legal and/or precedent:
“Not only do our wives need support, but our children need our deep involvement in their lives. If this period [the early years] of primitive needs and primitive caretaking passes without us, it is lost forever. We can be involved in other ways, but never again on this profoundly intimate level.”
—Augustus Y. Napier (20th century)
“Juggling produces both practical and psychological benefits.... A woman’s involvement in one role can enhance her functioning in another. Being a wife can make it easier to work outside the home. Being a mother can facilitate the activities and foster the skills of the efficient wife or of the effective worker. And employment outside the home can contribute in substantial, practical ways to how one works within the home, as a spouse and as a parent.”
—Faye J. Crosby (20th century)
“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)
“I am heartily tired of this life of bondage, responsibility, and toil. I wish it was at an end.... We are both physically very healthy.... Our tempers are cheerful. We are social and popular. But it is one of our greatest comforts that the pledge not to take a second term relieves us from considering it. That was a lucky thing. It is a reform—or rather a precedent for a reform, which will be valuable.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)