|
Justices agree to consider age discrimination case
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether older people may use a civil rights lawsuit to claim that company layoffs targeted them more than younger workers. The justices will decide whether a 1967 age discrimination law allows the former employees of Florida Power to sue on the basis that older workers suffered a "disparate impact" of the layoffs. The class-action lawsuit filed by former Florida Power employees who were 40 or older when fired as part of company reorganizations in the early 1990s. The workers claim they were fired because the company wanted to change its image and reduce its costs for salaries and pensions. More than 70 percent of the laid-off workers were 40 or older, the suit claimed. In other action Monday, the Supreme Court:
-- Agreed to hear an appeal by a candidate for elective judicial office who claims a state prohibition on discussing legal issues violates his free speech rights. -- Knocked down an appeals court ruling that an Indian tribe in Minnesota does not have to pay federal excise taxes on some gaming operations. The high court said the appeals court needs to reconsider the case in light of last week's Supreme Court decision that not all Indian gaming is exempt from federal taxes. -- Rejected a consumer challenge to an court ruling which struck down FCC limits on a cable television company's market share. -- Turned down an appeal by a California inmate who claimed prison officials classified him as a child molester on the basis of previous charges rather than convictions. Federal appeals courts are divided on the question of whether employees may claim age discrimination based on the premise that an employer's actions had a "disparate impact" on older workers. Other civil rights lawsuits, such as those alleging discrimination in housing or hiring and promotion, frequently use the same tactic. In April, the Supreme Court limited similar lawsuits under the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In writing that law, Congress did not expressly grant the right to claim that state policies had an unfair, discriminatory effect on minorities, the court said. People have the right to sue over alleged intentional, state-sponsored discrimination, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in last April's 5-4 decision. What they do not have the right to do, Scalia said, is challenge state decisions such as Alabama's policy of offering driver's tests only in English on the theory that such requirements affect minorities more than other applicants. In the Florida case, the question for the Supreme Court is whether such suits are allowed under the 1967 law forbidding on-the-job discrimination based on age. The case is Adams v. Florida Power Corp., 01-584. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RELATED SITES:
Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University On the Docket 2000-2001 The Supreme Court Historical Society Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh History of the Federal Judiciary Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
LAW TOP STORIES:
Robert Blake goes to court High court allows anti-abortion protests outside clinics Father of terror victim seeks court ruling to help his lawsuit Title IX minority pushes enforcement, not change Owners of Olympic winner's training rink guilty of fraud (More) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to the top |
© 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. |