Comments on: Can forbidden grounds be rational grounds? Ask Prof. Chemerinsky

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:33:18 +0000

jdgalt — I think the short answer is that the law allows quite a lot of leeway for bribes to retire, otherwise known as buyout offers; a cynical view would be that the law almost has to welcome them because they are a species of settlement, and negotiating settlements is what keeps employment lawyers in business. There are some ways in which mass buyout offers can set off discrimination tripwires, but a competent lawyer should be able to craft something that is lawful and will not give younger workers grounds to object. But a memo saying “we would be better off without Bob because of his age and likely recurrence of illness” would be potentially powerful evidence if instead of a buyout Bob remained in place and the relationship went sour eventuating in a claim of adverse action of some sort.

By: jdgalt

jdgalt — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:21:26 +0000

Is “thinking along those lines a lawsuit risk” even if the conclusion, real or proposed, is that we should offer George a nice bonus to retire now? Would that be considered discrimination against other employees who don’t get similar offers?

By: Death and Taxes

Death and Taxes — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:10:45 +0000

Isn’t age-based employment discrimination banned precisely because it’s rational?

By: ras

ras — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:20:39 +0000

Does the same logic apply when signing an NFL qb?

By: John

John — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:10:48 +0000

MattS, the thing that I find most ironic is that it was people like Prof. Chemerinsky who were howling about how if SCOTUS overturned Obamacare it would be completely political and the court should not be political. Of course when they are accusing Republicans of politicizing SCOTUS Chemerinsky’s article and others like it will be forgotten by everyone in the media except for already conservative media, libertarian media and places like this.

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:48:50 +0000

Prof. Chemerinsky’s real concern is that if she isn’t replaced now by Obama, she might end up being replaced by a Republican President. After all, she has publicly stated that she wouldn’t take who holds the WH into account when deciding if/when to retire.

By: gasman

gasman — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:24:32 +0000

EEOC has no trouble with airline pilots having forced retirement age. But then the members of the EEOC, and congress have their butts in the seats piloted by potentially geriatric pilots.