forumssoli.blogg.se

Knolls atomic power laboratory
Knolls atomic power laboratory








knolls atomic power laboratory knolls atomic power laboratory

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. 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. 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. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) is an American research and development facility based in Niskayuna, New York and dedicated to the support of the US. When the National Government ordered its contractor, respondent Knolls Atomic Power Lab.

knolls atomic power laboratory

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. 84 (2008), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today.










Knolls atomic power laboratory