Supreme Court reverse age discrimination arguments reported

CNN.com reports: “Supreme Court hears age discrimination case.”

“The Supreme Court expressed strong skepticism Wednesday that younger workers should be allowed to sue their employers if given fewer benefits than their older colleagues, a practice commonly known as reverse age discrimination.”

“In arguments Wednesday, the justices questioned whether Congress, in passing the anti-discrimination law, sought to protect younger as well as older workers over age 40, when their benefits differ.”

“Mark Biggerman, representing the excluded workers, argued that Congress did intend to protect the younger workers. ‘Congress intended to make age neutral,’ Biggerman said. ‘It’s about whether an individual loses out because of age.’ ”

“But Justice Antonin Scalia called that a “fanciful version” of what Congress intended.”

Ouch — how’d you like to hear your argument characterized that way on your big day before the Supremes?

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quickly followed up, adding that it is common for companies to offer greater benefits to workers over age 50. Such ’special accommodations,’ she said, can include flex time, reduced hours and exemptions from certain physical requirements of the job.”

“Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed somewhat sympathetic to the overall problems faced by people in their 40s who lose out on benefits enjoyed by their older co-workers. ‘This is hurtful,’ Kennedy said. ‘When employees find discrimination in their company, it can hurt.’ ”

By that “hurtful” standard, every employment discrimination case ever filed would be a winner! Give me a break.

A more detailed Washington Post story is here.

My earlier thoughts are here.

Sphere: Related Content