The key issue of enforcement of this Act is taken care of by EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). (1) (U.S. Department of Labor, ND).
McDonnell Douglas Case, which took place in the year 1973, eventually led to a landmark judgment in support of the plaintiff, stating that they (plaintiff) are not necessitated to prove that discrimination led to the termination of their employment. It (the case) maintained, even if a strong inference is shown that discrimination did take place, the same would suffice to initiate legal proceedings against the defendant. In fact, “Prima-facie” speaks about this very issue of allegations backed by strong facts, which are sufficient to prove the misconduct of discrimination. (2) (The Lectric Law Library, 2010).
In the case of O’ Conner v. Consolidated Coins Caterers, the final judgment of the US Supreme court is indeed an appropriate one. As a matter of fact, it (judgment) subtly focuses on the fact that, in some cases, the judges need to view the scenario with a broader perspective based on logic and common sense, rather than following the Law to the letter. It is this very common sense approach of the country’s apex court that led to the decision attaching more relevance to the actual age difference between the discharged employee and the replacement, in the case, and not to the age-based categorization of ADEA. (3) (NP, ND).
The law courts permit a dismissed employee to file a suit even when the person replacing them falls in the protection group, as per ADEA. There are several reasons for this, and the major ones would now be focused upon. Firstly, the courts are committed to providing full rights to the applicant, who is the victim of discrimination, for invoking the provisions of ADEA. Here, the fact that the petitioner is also entitled to build their case backed by Prima-facie evidence, as per the McDonnell Douglas standard, warrants no special mention. Secondly, even if the