22 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,176 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Staub v. Proctor Hosp.
562 U.S. 411 (2011) Cited 1,352 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a person who "did not intend to cause dismissal" cannot be deemed "responsible" for the dismissal, even if the dismissal was the "result" or "foreseeable consequence" of the person's actions
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
507 U.S. 604 (1993) Cited 1,910 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other
Smith v. City of Jackson
544 U.S. 228 (2005) Cited 655 times 57 Legal Analyses
Holding that "when Congress uses the same language in two statutes having similar purposes, particularly when one is enacted shortly after the other, it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes."
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 980 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union
Lehman v. Nakshian
453 U.S. 156 (1981) Cited 1,015 times
Holding that exceptions to the limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued "are not to be implied"
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.
154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,739 times
Holding that the remarks of a company official who did not make an ultimate employment decision still provided proof of discriminatory motive when that official "was in a position to shape the attitudes, policies, and decisions of the division's managers"
United States v. Utah Constr. Co.
384 U.S. 394 (1966) Cited 1,241 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts can give preclusive effect to certain administrative proceedings
Forman v. Small
271 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 206 times
Holding in ADEA case that, when "those who have input into the [employment] decision express such discriminatory feelings around the relevant time in regard to the adverse employment action complained of, then it may be possible to infer that the decision makers were influenced by those feelings in making their decisions"
Aliotta v. Bair
614 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 2010) Cited 100 times
Holding that employees were not constructively discharged under the ADEA when they were faced with the difficult decision of accepting a buy-out offer or staying and risking termination
Section 633a - Nondiscrimination on account of age in Federal Government employment
29 U.S.C. § 633a Cited 1,273 times 18 Legal Analyses
Extending antidiscrimination provisions to federal employees, but providing such employees a different remedy for violations
Section 2109 - Air traffic controller; Secretary
5 U.S.C. § 2109 Cited 5 times
For the purpose of this title- (1) "air traffic controller" or "controller" means a civilian employee of the Department of Transportation or the Department of Defense who, in an air traffic control facility or flight service station facility- (A) is actively engaged- (i) in the separation and control of air traffic; or (ii) in providing preflight, inflight, or airport advisory service to aircraft operators; or (B) is the immediate supervisor of any employee described in subparagraph (A); and (2)
Section 1625.7 - Differentiations based on reasonable factors other than age
29 C.F.R. § 1625.7 Cited 47 times 15 Legal Analyses
Concerning use of the RFOA defense against an “individual claim of discriminatory treatment”
Section 351.402 - Competitive area
5 C.F.R. § 351.402 Cited 26 times
Defining "competitive area"

Breen et al v. Mineta et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that a person who "did not intend to cause dismissal" cannot be deemed "responsible" for the dismissal, even if the dismissal was the "result" or "foreseeable consequence" of the person's actions

Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other

Holding that "when Congress uses the same language in two statutes having similar purposes, particularly when one is enacted shortly after the other, it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes."

Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union

Holding that exceptions to the limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued "are not to be implied"

Holding that the remarks of a company official who did not make an ultimate employment decision still provided proof of discriminatory motive when that official "was in a position to shape the attitudes, policies, and decisions of the division's managers"

Holding that courts can give preclusive effect to certain administrative proceedings

Holding that employees were not constructively discharged under the ADEA when they were faced with the difficult decision of accepting a buy-out offer or staying and risking termination

Extending antidiscrimination provisions to federal employees, but providing such employees a different remedy for violations

Concerning use of the RFOA defense against an “individual claim of discriminatory treatment”

Defining "competitive area"