Evidence and Proof
MIXED LEGITIMATE AND NON-LEGITIMATE MOTIVES FOR ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
The Supreme Court has ruled that direct evidence is not required for a plaintiff to prove that discrimination was a motivating factor in a “mixed-motive” case, i.e., a case in which an employer asserts both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for taking adverse employment action against an employee/applicant. Desert Palace Inc. v. Costa Boyer, 539 U.S. [...]
KALKINES WARNING FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS
The Kalkines warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by federal agents to federal employees and contractors in internal investigations when it is suspected that a crime has occurred. The Kalkines warning compels suspects to make statements or be fired, but also provides suspects with criminal immunity for their statements. It was promulgated by [...]
EEO SANCTIONS: ADVERSE INFERENCE AND ORDERS TO PAY COSTS
While he practiced law, John Zodrow was able to get EEOC Administrative Judges to apply an “adverse inference” against an agency of the government on a number of occasions, which means that the AJ infers from the Agency’s conduct (or misconduct) that it is willfully obstructing or hiding information to which the opposing party is [...]
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: PROVING THE CASE
Proving employment discrimination is not as hard as it used to be, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa. In Costa, the unanimous Court held that a Title VII plaintiff need not offer “direct evidence” of discrimination to earn a mixed-motive jury instruction at trial. The ruling will have [...]
AGE DISCRIMINATION BURDENS OF PROOF
On March 30, 2005, in a decision that changed the landscape of age discrimination litigation in the employment context, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Smith v. City of Jackson that workers age 40 and older may prove discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) using a “disparate impact” theory. [...]