DONATE

Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

Connect with the
Foundation

Email:

foundation@aarp.org


AARP Foundation Litigation:

202-434-2060


Toll-free Nationwide:

888-OUR-AARP

(888-687-2277)

 

Toll-free TTY:

877-434-7598

 

AARP Foundation Tax ID

52-0794300

AARP Foundation Legal Advocacy

Docket: Employment Discrimination

    

Case Name: Noreen v. PharMerica Corp.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir. Docket: 15-2917

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court of appeals accepted the defendants' argument that the plaintiff was terminated because of his performance, not age discrimination. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' supervisor had never followed the company's policy for choosing employees to terminate during reductions in force, so his deviation from the policy in this instance did not suggest discriminatory intent. The court also found that supervisory employees' comments about preferring to hire new grads were "stray remarks" that did not suggest age bias.

Case Name: Phillips v. NYPD

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. SDNY Docket: 11-6685

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Settlement allows police officers to return to work using their hearing aids and other officers will be permitted to take auditory examination using hearing aids.

Case Name: Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ND Cal. Docket: 16-02276

Read Complaint

Case Issue: Do PwC's hiring and related employment practices have the purpose and effect of disadvantaging and deterring older applicants for entry- and mid-level jobs, in violation of federal and California age bias laws?

Case Name: Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Kansas Docket: 16-cv-01282

Read Press Release and Complaint

Case Issue: In conducting a reduction-in-force, did the aerospace company target older workers in the hope of eliminating individuals with costly medical claims from the firm's self-insured medical plan?

Case Name: Romero v. Allstate Ins. Corp. (2005)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa.

Read Summary

Case Issue: Did employer unlawfully retaliate against the plaintiffs (former agents) by filing counterclaims against them alleging (falsely) that the plaintiffs violated the terms of the release they were required to sign when they were terminated?

Case Name: Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa.

Read Summary

Case Issue: Did employer violate ERISA and/or the ADEA when it involuntarily terminated employee-agents, 90% of whom were older workers, in order to convert those willing to sign a release to independent contractor status?

Case Name: Russell v. Phillips 66

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 16-5063

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court of Appeals found that Russell had not presented enough evidence to show that his depression substantially limited any major life activity, so he had not shown that he has a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the court found that Russell did not have a covered disability, it did not decide whether Russell's employer discriminated against him when it failed to reassign him to a vacant position for which he was qualified. 

Case Name: Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Press Release

Case Result: The court ruled that disparate impact age discrimination claims brought under the Maine Human Rights Act must be evaluated under the more stringent "business necessity" standard not the lenient "reasonable factor other than age" standard that federal age discrimination disparate impact claims are subject to.

Case Name: Squyres v. The Heico Companies

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir.   Docket: 13-11358

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court affirmed summary judgment concluding that employer's explanation for the plaintiff's termination was credible and that age-related comments by plaintiff's co-workers did not demonstrate age-based animus against him.

Topic Alerts

You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click “Follow.”

Manage Alerts

Processing

Please wait...

progress bar, please wait

Search Legal Advocacy

Find
Legal Cases

Find cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases. The cases within the drop-down categories below are in alphabetical order for ease of searching.

Strengthening Law and Policy through
Legal Advocacy

Our legal advocacy initiatives  - conducted by AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) - reflect nearly 20 years of work in federal and state courts across the country. Through our efforts, we support the Foundation’s four impact areas: Tackling Senior Hunger, Paving the Way to Stable Income, assuring the adequacy and availability of Safe and Afffordable Housing and Reconnecting People to Families and Communities, and ensure that those 50 and older have a voice in the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.