Skip to content
 

Docket: Discrimination/Barriers to Employment

Case Name: AARP v. EEOC

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

Read Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: AARP successfully convinced the D.C. District Court to vacate the EEOC’s 2016 wellness rules. The court made the rules ineffective as of January 1, 2019—two years sooner than the agency proposed to take to issue new rules. This is a major victory for AARP and workers because it means two fewer years of coercive penalties imposed on employees who exercise their civil right to keep private information private in the workplace.


Case Name: Brandenburg v. Montgomery Co. Pub. Schools (MCPS)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Md.   Docket: 8:18-cv-02583

Read Complaint (PDF) and Press Release (PDF)

Filed: 8/21/2018

Case Issue: Is MCPS Employees' Retirement and Pension System Plan's policy of denying accidental disability retirement benefits to employees who became disabled because of a work-related accident at age 62 or older age discriminatory?


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 Result: The court ruled that Kentucky Workers' Compensation statute cutting off benefits at retirement eligibility age was unconstitutional. 


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: 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 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: IMDb.com v. Becerra

Court: U.S. Dist Ct. ND Cal.    Docket: 16-cv-06535-VC

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that entertainment employment service providers can post workers' age information on the internet without the workers' consent.  


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: 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: Mt. Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido & Rankin

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 17-587

Decided: 7/12/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does the ADEA's definition of "employer," Section 630(b), cover non-federal government entities with fewer than twenty employees?


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: 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: Reagan-Diaz v. Sessions

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir  Docket: 17-5092

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Must the federal government try to find reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities who are receiving workers' compensation benefits?


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: Taaffe v. Ohio State Univ.

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

Read ComplaintSettlement (PDF) Article and Podcast

Case Result: Plaintiffs reinstated to prior positions. OSU paid $765,000 and agreed to add "age" to the list of protected categories on job posting sites; hold two trainings regarding age discrimination and HR investigations; adopt a "second look" policy where HR complainants can appeal results of investigation and obtain an unconflicted individual's review; and University-wide review of all discrimination policies and guidelines. 


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

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?