With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned its previous rulings in the precedents by transferring the full burden of proof to the worker. In other words, the employee should prove that he was dismissed primarily and solely because of his age (the protection of the law applies to employees above 40 years old).
In this case, the Court has made it more difficult for employees to pursue age discrimination cases successfully. Employers possess all the records and information on the employee’s history, with the capability of concealing them entirely, since employers would not need to lift a finger to prove their case. The employee, on the other hand, would rarely be in possession of the documentary data needed to prove an allegation of discrimination. After all, discrimination exists in the mind of the decision-maker, and with only testamentary accounts to back up his claim, the employee is put at a distinct disadvantage to the employer.
Furthermore, the employer possesses much greater resources than the worker, and risks very little in accommodating the employee back into his payroll should he lose the case, while the worker’s entire livelihood and subsistence is at stake. The tenets of social justice thus imposes upon the court to even the odds by imposing the burden of evidence on the employer when the minimum requirement is proven by the worker.
The economic recession is increasingly taking a toll on the nation’s workforce as more and more business find it necessary to resort to layoffs in an effort to downsize. It has been observed, however, that employers have resorted to a “last one in, first one out” policy when it comes to selecting those workers who have to go. Instead of letting the older employees – who receive higher salaries because of their seniority in the company – go, companies elect instead to separate those who are in