Supreme Court Allows Disparate Impact Claims Under the Adea - Assignment Example

Court Case: Lorillard v. Pons In this particular case, the plaintiff was able to sue her employer for the simple reason that the employer relieved her of her duties on the basis of her age. Following this, the plaintiff went ahead to request for a jury trial although the district court failed to grant her this favour. However, the Supreme Court finally received an appeal concerning the case in order to give a clear statement on whether the jury was justified to give a verdict on the issues brought up by the plaintiff in accordance to ADEA despite the fact that these issues were considered to be private (Bible 163).

According to the Supreme Court, such a violation is equivalent to the violation of the Fair Labour standards and if the case went through taking the available evidence into consideration, it would imply that the plaintiff deserved monetary compensation. A simple fact of the matter is that the plaintiff in this situation is presented with an option of approaching the Secretary of Labor who would try to solve the issue without too much involvement of the law. If the secretary spends more than sixty days without starting up a relevant follow-up, the plaintiff was expected to sue the defendant.

On the contrary, if the secretary started actions towards compensation of the plaintiff by the defendant, then the right to sue the defendant would be denied. Realizing that he was wrong as long as the ADEA was being used to deal with this case, the complainant had no any other option other than wait and listen to the Supreme Court’s final verdict (Bible 164) Can I Be Sued? An interviewer, who eliminates a candidate just because of the medical condition of low vision capability can be sued since given some reasonable accommodation, the candidate can still perform as much as the normal humans would perform.

Similarly, an employer who rejects a candidate with AIDS is liable to be sued since this is discrimination based on employee’s state of health which breaches the ADEA rules. According to this advertisement, the term able-bodied is already discriminating against the people with disabilities while the employer who fails to install restrooms for the disabled also violates the rights of the people with disabilities and both of them can be sued in a court of law (Bible 165). The employer who performs a medical examination on applicants to cut costs by hiring healthy workers openly deserves to be sued for avoiding the employment of the disabled; the same case applies to the interviewer who asks the applicant whether he or she smokes.

Smoking is not at all related to poor delivery in workplaces neither does mental illness as observed by the employer who shies away from employing the applicant on depression medication. The HR whose hiring is influenced by the knowledge on the applicants spending of time in a rehabilitation center is biased and the HR can be sued under the ADEA; the same applies to the other HR who wants to confirm whether an employee’s cast on his leg occurred during the job period or not. The employer who advertises jobs for recent college may or may not be sued, although the employer who hires people during the forties does not deserve to be sued.

He's asking about retirement year is justified; perhaps he asks this in order to employ more workers to replace them (Bible 168). The interviewer who only asks the old whether they are able to work neglecting the younger ones clearly shows discriminative he is and deserves to be sued. It is possible that older employees can have better payback on the trainee expenses of employees hence the employer who only concentrates on the younger employees should be sued. Finally, the trainer who laments being told to retrain older employees should be sued because he does not believe that the young and the old may have the same rate of understanding concepts even in software packages (Bible 171).