Skip to content
 

Docket: Discrimination/Barriers to Employment

Case Name: American Diabetes Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. Army

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir   Docket: 18-15242

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does a large entity engaged in legal advocacy incur an "injury-in-fact"--required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to establish "organizational standing"--by virtue of a single contact between the organization's legal advocacy staff and parents conplaining about a matter affecting the group's organizational mission?


Case Name: Babb v. Wilkie

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 18-882

Read Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Decided: 4/6/2020

Case Issue: Does the ADEA's federal-sector provision -- which requires that such workplaces be "made free from any discrimination based on age" -- prohibit all federal employer conduct for which age is a consideration, or only such considerations if a federal employee or job applicant can show that they would not have incurred harm to their employment opportunities "but for" such consideration of age?

Case Result: Reversed decision of 11th Cir. (affirming district court judgment vs. plaintiff-employee Babb and for defendant-employer United States).

 


Case Name: Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express v. Zarda; Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 17-1618; 17-1623;18-107

Read Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Decided: 6/15/2020

Case Issue: Does Discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitute prohibited employment discrimination "because of . . . Sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2.

Case Result: Court ruled 6-3 that under Title VII, discrimination “because of . . . sex” includes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and transgender status. I.e., “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” 

 


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

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

Read Complaint (PDF), Press Release (PDF), More

Decided: 1/16/2019

 


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 Result: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of an employer’s requirement that employees resolve legal disputes disputes with the employer in individual arbitration, and neither the FAA’s savings clause nor the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) requires employees to be allowed to resolve such disputes collectively or as a class.


Case Name: Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 19-1063

Filed: 6/6/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: May evidence of a reduction in the average age of persons holding a category of positions, which positions were first vacated via group terminations, then filled via replacement hires, support an inference of age discrimination in the place of the usual evidence of age bias, consisting of the difference between the ages of individuals fired and their specific replacements, where the employer replaced terminated persons in a group and did not replace specific individuals?


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: Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.  Docket: 19-1514

Decided: 3/24/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Case Issue: May a class action be certified under the Americans with Disabilities Act to challenge a company-wide policy that affects employees in various jobs with various disabilities?

Case Result:  Class certification vacated and remand for individual proceedings.


Case Name: IMDb.com v. Becerra

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir   Docket: 18-15469; 18-15463

Decided:  6/19/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF), Article, and Opinion (PDF)

Case Issue: Do entertainment employment service providers have a constitutional right to publish age information on the Internet when their subscribers object?

Case Result: The U.S. Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s decision that California legislation designed to curb age discrimination in the entertainment industry was unconstitutional and that IMDb.com could continue to publish entertainment workers ages and birth dates on its website. 


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: Kleber v. CareFusion

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

Read AARP's Appellant Brief (PDF), Reply Brief (PDF) and En Banc Decision (PDF) Petition for Cert (4/23/2019, PDF)

Result Note: The U.S. Supreme Court denied Kleber's petition for certiorari. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision that section 4(a)(2) of the Age Discriminaiton in Employment Act (ADEA) does not permit outside job applicants to challenge unreasonable hiring policies and practices under the disparate impact theory is allowed to stand.

Case Result: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a favorable panel decision and held that the district court properly dismissed a job applicant's disparate impact claim against a potential employer for age discrimination because section 4(a)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), does not apply to outside job applicants. 

Note: A petition for cert filed 4/23/2019 Cert Denied: 10/7/2019


Case Name: Kwesell  v. Yale

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Conn.   Docket: 3:19-cv-10980

Read: Complaint (PDF) and WNPR Listen/Read

Case Issue: Is a wellness program that fines employees $1,300. per year  for refusing to reveal medical and genetic information and submit to medical examinations "voluntary" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).  


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

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

Decided: 11/6/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision

Case Result: Unanimous affirmance of ninth circuit decision upholding application of ADEA to state and local government employers regardless of number of employees. 


Case Name: Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

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

Motion Filed: 3/3/2020

Read ComplaintPress ReleaseMotion for Preliminary Settlement ApprovalProposed Collective & Class Action Settlement

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: Ray v. AT&T Mobility Services

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ED Pa.  Docket: 2:18-cv-03303-TR

Decided: 1/11/2019

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

Case Result: The court ruled that AT&T failed to meet the statutory requirements for a valid ADEA waiver by failing to disclose the "decisional unit" involved in the reduction-in-force.


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 Result: The D.C. Circuit upheld the district court's decision that Reagan-Diaz's requested accommodation of an initial 2-hour workday was unreasonable and held that she could not perform the essential functions of her job.s?


Case Name: Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir  Docket: 17-3508

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

Case Result: The Seventh Circuit ruled that a Chicago bus driver’s “extreme obesity” did not constitute an “impairment” covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) absent proof either that it was caused by a separate, underlying physiological disorder or condition or that, on its own, it constituted a physiological disorder. The Court rejected AARP’s and Richardson’s arguments that the ADA, as amended in 2008, calls for a more lenient analysis of what constitutes an ADA impairment. The Court affirmed a district court’s dismissal of Mr. Richardson’s challenge to his termination.


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: Taylor v. Burlington Northern RR Holdings

Court: Supreme Ct. State of Washington  Docket: 96335-5 (9th Cir. No. 16-35205)

Filed: 1/14/2019

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

Case Issue: Is obesity an impairment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Revised Code of Washington, Section 49.60.040 and, if so, under what circumstances? 

Answer to certified question:  "obesity always qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of [Revised Code of Washington] 49.60.040(7)(c)(i) because it is a 'psysiological disorder, or condition' that affects many . . . body systems."


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?