"Disparate Impact" Theory Available In Age Discrimination Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.07.05
Resolving a split in the circuit courts, a divided Supreme Court in Smith v. City of Jackson, (Mar. 30, 2005) held that the "disparate impact" theory of liability, which does not require a showing of discriminatory intent, applies to claims asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). However, the Court noted that "the scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is narrower" than under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, due to statutory language in ADEA that permits employers to take "otherwise prohibited" employment action where the "differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age," such as seniority or rank.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
