Court Rules On Workplace Issues

The New York Times reports that a 7-to-1 Supreme Court decision, ruled in favor of older workers, requiring employers to prove that a layoff or other action was not based on age but rather some other “reasonable factor.”

The case was brought by 28 employees who lost their jobs during cutbacks at a federal research laboratory in upstate New York.  All but one of the employees who were laid off were at least 40, the age at which protections begin under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the decision, “will make it much harder for small-business owners to defend themselves against allegations of violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, particularly when it comes to responding to market changes and new technology without fearing that any real change in their business plan will prompt a baseless lawsuit.”

The court also ruled 7-to-2 that federal labor law pre-empted a California law that limited many employers from speaking to their employees about union-related issues.  The California law, enacted in 2000 with the support of organized labor, was similar to laws in a dozen other states, with similar bills pending in still more states.  It was upheld by the federal appeals court in San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by the Chamber of Commerce, supported by a number of other groups including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Under the law, employers that received state grants, contracts or reimbursements could not use the money to “assist, promote or deter union organizing.”  Certain activities favoring unions were permitted

Lastly, the court voted 5-to-4 to uphold a Kentucky retirement plan for certain workers who receive credit for unworked years if forced by disability to retire before the age of 55.  Although older workers do not receive a similar benefit, the distinction does not amount to age discrimination.