Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded in light of its intervening decision in Smith v. The jury found for petitioners on the disparate-impact claim, and the Second Circuit initially affirmed. The Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU) facilities occupy about five acres of the 170-acre Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL). This rating has decreased by -11 over the last 12 months. 14 of employees would recommend working at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory to a friend and 27 have a positive outlook for the business. To show such an impact, petitioners relied on a statistical expert's testimony that results so skewed according to age could rarely occur by chance and that the scores for "flexibility" and "criticality," over which managers had the most discretionary judgment, had the firmest statistical ties to the outcomes. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory has an overall rating of 2.6 out of 5, based on over 103 reviews left anonymously by employees.
Petitioners were among those laid off, and they filed the present suit asserting a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Of the 31 employees let go, 30 were at least 40 years old. to reduce its work force, Knolls had its managers score their subordinates on "performance," "flexibility," and "critical skills" these scores, along with points for years of service, were used to determine who was laid off. When the National Government ordered its contractor, respondent Knolls Atomic Power Lab. Reasonableness is a justification categorically distinct from the factual condition "because of age" and not necessarily correlated with it in any particular way: a reasonable factor may lean more heavily on older workers, as against younger ones, and an unreasonable factor might do just the opposite. The focus of the defense is that the factor relied upon was a reasonable one for the employer to be using. The defense of a reasonable factor other than age in a disparate-impact case is not focused on the asserted fact that a non-age factor was at work a court assumes it was. In a typical disparate-impact case, an employer's practice is without respect to age and its adverse impact (though because of age) is attributable to a nonage factor so action based on a factor other than age is the very premise for disparate-impact liability in the first place, not a negation of it or a defense to it.
0 kommentar(er)
