The Unemployed Life
The New Freedom Fifty-Five?
Downsizing just got a little easier.
Until last week, companies may have hesitated to lay off their older, likely more expensive workers, and not just because they’re the ones with more experience and perhaps better equipped to manage business through a downturn. They probably also considered the lawsuits that could come their way.
Under current civil-rights laws, which were amended in 1991, U.S. employers have increasingly been subject to anti-discrimination lawsuits based on age. Since the recession took hold last year, the number of age-bias claims has grown by 30 percent, nearly surpassing the number of race discrimination claims, according the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But last week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court modified those laws, saying it’s up to fired or laid off workers to prove that age was a key factor in losing their jobs, rather than their employers.
“The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. He added this legal rule applies “even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor.” (via WSJ)
It’s not a great time to be an older worker (by which the Court meant workers 55 and older). Some retirement funds have been hit by the financial market crash, while real estate values have plummeted – but the bright spot was employment: The unemployment rate for workers in this age bracket has hovered around six percent, well below the national rate, government figures show.
The court’s decision, meant to protect businesses from frivolous and costly lawsuits, is likely to force more seniors into an already tight job market, where they tend to take much longer than younger jobseekers to find work.
–
Get Recessionwire in your inbox! Subscribe to our daily Recession Briefing newsletter for the latest headlines to help you survive and thrive in the downturn.
Tags: Discussion
3 comments for “The New Freedom Fifty-Five?”
Post a comment
Special Sections
Hey, thanks, Clarence! Just when I thought things could not get any worse. It’s nice to know that at age 61 you’re making it easier for corporations to give older workers the boot. But, hey, a seat on the Court is for life, right? It must feel nice.
One more ugly decision by the hypocritical right-wing judicial activists who run the Supreme Court. But not to worry: they have lifetime appointments and ageism can’t cost THEM their jobs.
Angus Loten’s story fails to tell us which justices voted which way in this 5-4 ruling, but it’s exactly as anyone would have expected. Voting with Clarence Thomas were Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia. John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and
Yeah, thanks for the uplifting news. Why don’t you do a follow-up piece on how to look and dress younger in order to (hopefully) fool employers into thinking you’re younger so that you’ll get hired? [along with the standard "shaving a few years" off your resume, of course].