Skip to content
 

Docket: Discrimination/Barriers to Employment

Case Name: Babb v. Wilkie

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

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)

Filed: 9/24/2019

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 Name: Kwesell v. Yale University

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Conn. Docket: 3:19-cv-01098

Read: Complaint (PDF), Article, WNPR Listen/Read

Filed: 7/16/2019

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: Taylor v. Burlington Northern RR Holdings

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

Decided: 7/11/2019

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: 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)

Filed: 7/3/2019

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 Name: Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority

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

Read Amicus Brief (PDF), Article and Decision

Decided: 6/12/2019

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: 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)

Decided: 1/23/2019 Petition for Cert Filed:  4/23/2019 Cert Denied: 10/7/2019

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. 


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: Reagan-Diaz v. Sessions

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

Decided: 1/11/2019

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.


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: 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: IMDb.com v. Becerra

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

Filed: 10/3/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Article

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


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

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

Filed: 6/29/2018

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: Taaffe v. Drake

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

Decided:6/20/2018

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: 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

Decided: 5/21/2018

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: IMDb.com v. Becerra

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

Decided: 2/20/2018

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: AARP v. EEOC

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

Decided: 12/20/2017

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: Cruse v. Henderson County Bd. of Educ.

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

Decided: 12/19/2017

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: Vaughan v. Anderson Reg'l Med. Ctr.

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

Decided: 10/2/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Petition for certiorari denied.


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

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

Decided: 6/26/2017

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: McLeod v. General Mills

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

Decided: 5/11/2017

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: Russell v. Phillips 66

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

Decided: 05/04/2017

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: Williams v. Tarrant County College District (TCCD)

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

Filed: 4/19/2017

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?


Case Name: Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Decided: 3/7/2017

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: Vaughan v. Anderson Reg. Med. Ctr.

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

Decided: 2/15/2017

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: EEOC v. Flambeau

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

Decided: 1/25/2017

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: Kleber v. CareFusion

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

Stipulation of Dismissal Filed: 1/10/2017

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: Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

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

Decided: 10/5/2016

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Result: In a divided decision, the full Eleventh Circuit ruled that the text of Sec. 4(a)(2) of the ADEA unambiguously forecloses disparate impact claims by applicants alleging age discriminaiton in hiring policies and practices.


Case Name: Green v. Dallas County Schools

Court: Supreme Ct. Texas    Docket: 16-0214

Filed: 8/3/2016

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: Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems

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

Filed: 7/11/2016

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: Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

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

Filed: 4/27/2016

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: Morriss v. BNSF Railway

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

Decided: 4/5/2016

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.