The suit was filed after the company laid off 31 employees — 30 of whom were over the age of 40. The company argued that age played no part in the decision. The case was initially thrown out when the plaintiffs failed to prove the layoffs were age-related.

But the Supreme Court overturned that decision, saying the company had the burden to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.

The case now goes back to the circuit court to decide if the company met that burden.

What’s it mean for employers? Some experts say the decision will lead to more age discrimination suits, especially as more companies reduce their workforces due to a sluggish economy.

It’s a good reminder that when companies do have to lay people off, they need strong documentation of the decision-making criteria so they can prove age and other protected categories didn’t play a role.

Cite: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

Answer: stray remarks by a supervisor. Take this recent example:

An employee brought his prescription medication into work. Allegedly he offered to give or sell the so-called “happy pills” to some of his co-workers. After finding out and investigating, the company fired him.

He denied handing out the drugs and sued, claiming his age was the real reason he was fired. After failing to get the case thrown out, the company agreed to pay a $210,000 settlement.

Why’d the company lose? According to the employee, his supervisor had told him he might be “too old to handle this job” and “carried too much baggage.”

The comments were enough evidence for the judge to conclude that the investigation might have been pretext for age discrimination.

Cite: Tower v. City of Denton

The Supreme Court recently ruled on two employment cases. The result: It’s now even harder to fight retaliation claims.

In the first case, an African-American employee claimed he was fired for bringing a complaint to his supervisor (he believed a co-worker had been discriminated against).

Most retaliation suits are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – but in this case, the employee couldn’t do this because his EEOC charge wasn’t filed properly. Instead, he sued under an 1866 law that also protects employees from racial discrimination.

Unlike Title VII, the older law doesn’t mention retaliation. But the Court ruled for the employee, saying the ban on discrimination also implied a ban on retaliation.

Implied protection

The second case involved a government employee who sued for retaliation. She was fired after filing an age discrimination complaint. The section of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) that applies to federal workers doesn’t mention retaliation (the section for private employers does).

But like in the case above, the court ruled that a protection against retaliation was implied by the law.

What’s it mean for employers?

The decisions may not have a huge direct impact, employment attorneys say. Title VII already covers retaliation cases and the ADEA decision only applies to federal workers.

But the message to all employers is clear: Courts are more willing than ever to let employees sue for retaliation. That’s bad news for companies, since the number of retaliation claims made each year is already on a quick rise (they now make up 32% of all the charges filed with the EEOC).

What can HR do about it? Now’s a good time to re-train managers on retaliation, reminding them to document all their decisions and watch how they treat employees after any complaint is filed.

Cite: CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries and Gomez-Perez v. Potter

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), agreements waiving the right to sue have to meet special requirements – otherwise courts will let former employees file claims anyway.

The law requires that agreements:

• Specially mention a waiver of ADEA claims (a broad release of “all claims” isn’t good enough)
• Advise employees, in writing, to consult an attorney before deciding whether or not to accept the agreement, and
• Give people 45 days to make the decision (once they do sign, they have another seven days to revoke the agreement).

Also, for the release to be valid, employers must give employees certain written information when the agreement is offered. That includes:

• What “class, unit, or group” of employees was considered for the terminations
• The timeframe in which the reduction will take place
• The criteria used for making the termination decisions, and
• The job titles and ages of all employees picked to be let go, as well as the titles and ages of people in the affected departments who weren’t chosen (though you don’t need to give any names).