Skip to content
 

Docket: Employment Discrimination

Case Name: AARP v. EEOC

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C.   Docket: 16-2113

Read Press Release    Complaint (PDF)

Case Issue: Can the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) allow employers to penalize employees thousands of dollars for refusing to provide sensitive medical and genetic information through employee wellness programs?


Case Name: Calobrisi v. Booz Allen Hamilton

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 4th Cir.    Docket: 15-1331(1); 15-1399 XAP

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's age and sex bias claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim and defendant's sanctions motion.


Case Name: Cruse v. Henderson County Bd. of Educ.

Court: Supreme Ct. of Kentucky    Docket: 2015-SC-000506

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Is a Kentucky law that cuts off workers' compensation income benefits for injured employees at the age of Social Security Retirement eligibility - regardless of whether the employee is actually drawing retirement benefits - unconstitutional and unlawful under federal law prohibiting age discrimination in employment?


Case Name: Dainiak v. Northeast Medical Group

Court: Superior Court J.D. of New Haven    Docket: NNH-CV-14-6047134-5

Read Complaint (PDF)

Case Result: Significant confidential monetary settlement for plaintiff.


Case Name: Epic Systems v. Lewis; NLRB v. Murphy Oil; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris

Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Docket: 16-285; 16-300; 16-307

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does the National Labor Relations Act guarantee workers a right to pursue group action against their employer to challenge unfair working conditions if they waive such a right in their employment contract?


Case Name: EEOC v. Flambeau

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir.   Docket: 16-1402

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court found that it could not decide the merits of the case because the company no longer required employees to participate in its wellness program to secure health insurance.


Case Name: Flynn v. Distinctive Home Care

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir.   Docket: 15-50314

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Weighing in on a controversial issue that has divided the federal courts, the Fifth Circuit unanimously held that independent contractors may bring employment discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids disability-based discrimination in federally-funded programs.


Case Name: Godwin v. WellStar Health System

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 11th Cir.    Docket: 14-11637

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The 11th circuit reversed summary judgment for the employer on the employee's ADEA claim under the "Cat's Paw" theory of liability, but affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the employee's disability discrimination and retaliation claims.


Case Name: Green v. Dallas County Schools

Court: Supreme Ct. Texas    Docket: 16-0214

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Are plaintiffs suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or under a state law similar to the ADA or following interpretations under the ADA, required to show the underlying cause of their disability in order to demonstrate a covered "disability," and thereby to be entitled to the ADA's (or an equivalent state law's) antidiscrimination protection.


Case Name: Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 08-441

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Unlike Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit mixed-motive claims and, therefore, in order to establish liability under the ADEA, the plaintiff must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action.


Case Name Hall v. Rite Aid

Court: Cal. Ct. App.     Docket: D062909

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does state law mandate that working employees be provided with seats when their work reasonable permits use of seats?


Case Name: Hilde v. City of Eveleth

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.    Docket: S14-1016

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: It is improper to consider a candidate's eligibility for retirement when making a hiring decision because assuming an individual is uncommitted to a position when their age makes them retirement-eligible is prohibited age-stereotyping.


Case Name: Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir.    Docket: 15-5018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Court held that the Department of Labor has the authority to require third-party employers (such as home health care staffing agencies) to pay home health care workers minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


Case Name: IMDb.com v. Becerra

Court: U.S. Dist Ct. ND Cal.    Docket: 16-cv-06536-VC

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Is California law mandating that entertainment employment service providers remove age data within five days of an entertainment worker's request constitutional?  


Case Name: Jacob v. Duane Reade

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir.     Docket: 13-3873-cv

Read Summary and Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: District court properly certified class action on behalf of assistant store managers in overtime pay case under N.Y. wage and hour law.


Case Name: Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy; Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase (see also Hall v. Rite Aid)

Court: Cal. Supreme Ct.    Docket: S215614

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: California workers win the right to sit down in most circumstances. Court held: 1)There is no principled reason for denying an employee a seat even when s/he spends a substantial part of his/her workday performing tasks that must be done standing. 2) Under California regulations all employees are entitled to a seat, and an employer cannot limit the right to a seat based on an employee's physical characteristics.


Case Name: Kleber v. CareFusion

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir.  Docket: 17-1206

Read AARP's Appellant Brief (PDF) and Reply Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) allow job applicants to challenge hiring practices (here a "maximum years of experience" requirement) that unreasonably screens out older applicants without expressly disfavoring them based on their age.


Case Name: Kleber v. CareFusion

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ND Ill.  Docket: 15-cv-01994

Read Complaint (PDF)

Case Result: AFL settled Mr.Kleber's disparate treatment claim and will now appeal CareFusion's refusal to consider his job application because he was "overqualified" - i.e., had more experience than the seven-year limit stated in the job notice - as a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by excluding older workers without a reasonable justification.


Case Name: Knotts v. Grafton City Hospital

Court: Supreme Ct. of App. WV   Docket: 14-0752

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court ruled that, contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, a 64-year-old employee could not create an inference of age discrimination by showing that she was replaced by or treated worse than younger employees because those employees were also over the age of 40.


Case Name: Mach Mining v. EEOC

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 13-1019

Read Summary and Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Courts may conduct only a narrow review before suing an employer in a Title VII case and failure to conciliate does not requrie dismissal.


Case Name: McLeod v. General Mills

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.   Docket: 15-3540

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision denying General Mills' motion to compel arbitration. The court also vacated the district court's decision that, under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, it was for the court to decide in the first instance whether the plaintiffs' waiver of ADEA claims, in the severance agreement they signed upon termination by General Mills, was valid. The court remanded the case to be sent to arbitration and to be dismissed or to be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. 


Case Name: McLeod v. General Mills

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Dist. Minn.    Docket: 15-cv-00494

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: District court ruled for plaintiffs on grounds plain language of OWBPA and enactment history require validity of waiver to be decided in a court.


Case Name: Morriss v. BNSF Railway

Court: U.S. Ct. App, 8th Cir.   Docket: 14-3858

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief PDF)

Case Result: The court concluded that obesity is only an ADA "impairment" if the plaintiff's weight is both outside "normal" range and caused by an underlying health condition, relying on EEOC guidance and rejecting AARP's and EEOC's arguments to the contrary. The court therefore affirmed the district court's decision that Morriss was not covered by the ADA.


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.

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa.    Docket: 2:01-cv-03894-RB

Read Court Memo

Case Result: In litigation that spans over 15 years, the district court generally cleared Allstate of liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The long-running case stems from Allstate's 1990s program to convert its insurance agent-employees to independent contractors. The court found that Allstate's elimination of its employee agent force of independent contractors was done for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The court also found that Allstate did not violate ERISA by amending an early retirement subsidy in its pension plan applicable to agents who later became independent contractors. 


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.


Case Name: Taaffe v. Ohio State Univ.

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. SD Ohio    Docket: 15-02870

Read Complaint

Case Issue: Did the university administrators allow the English as a Second Language department to conduct an orchestrated effort to drive older staff members out of their jobs through a pattern of age discrimination and harassment.


Case Name: Tramp v. Associated Underwriters

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.    Docket: 13-2546

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Summary judgment for employer reversed as there was evidence employer terminated older employees because it believed that by doing so it would reduce the company's health care costs.


Case Name: Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 14-1146

Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court affirmed lower court rulings approving a classwide calculation of damages, due to denial of overtime, "using representative" testimony in the absence of actual time records. The Court also rejected as premature an analysis whether any unharmed plaintiff might recover, given that the damages award had not yet been distributed.


Case Name: Vaughan v. Anderson Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Court: U.S.Supreme Court    Docket: 16-1386

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Petition for certiorari denied. 


Case Name: Vaughan v. Anderson Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir.    Docket: 16-60104

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Result: On rehearing, the court issued a slightly-altered opinion explaining in more detail why it believed the 1977 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) amendments allowing pain and suffering damages in wage and hour retaliation cases had no effect on Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cases, even though the ADEA incorporates FLSA's remedies by reference.


Case Name: Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 16-971

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Result: The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari that would have resolved the issue of whether applicants can bring disparate impact hiring claims under the ADEA. The issue is still being litigated in two AFL litigation cases, Kleber v. CareFusion and Rabin v. Price WaterhouseCoopers.


Case Name: Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 11th Cir.    Docket: 15-10602-U

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Issue: Do hiring practices that tend to screen out older applicants, such as experience maximums and preferences for recent graduates, violate federal law? Do job applicants have to proactively investigate whether potential employers discriminated against them just in case they later learn that they were discriminated against, just so their claims won't be considered late?


Case Name: Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 11th Cir.    Docket: 15-10602

Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Result: Job seekers, not just current employees, may bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court also held that the proper standard for determining whether a complainant was justified in delaying filing a charge of discrimination is whether they were aware, or should have become aware of the facts supporting the claim.


Case Name: Williams v. Tarrant County College District (TCCD)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir.    Docket: 16-11804

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Issue: Did Ms. Williams' employer, who conceded she is a person with an ADA "impairment," thereby regard her as having an ADA disability?