Compliance Stuff

May an employee assert a hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)? In  Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit responded affirmatively, and, in so doing, joined a number of its sister circuits that had previously recognized such a claim. This case serves as a significant reminder to employers to understand how age discrimination can manifest in the workplace and the legal standards required to prove such claims. Quick Hits The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined multiple other federal courts of appeals in finding that hostile work environment claims are viable under the ADEA . As part of stating an age discrimination claim, an employee must establish that the complained-of conduct is based on his or her age. Speculative and conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a claim of age-based harassment. Background The plaintiff was a long-tenured and “exemplary” teache...

As businesses integrate AI tools into operations, a spike in related litigation is no surprise, especially due to the lack of formal legal precedent. Last month, a federal court in the Northern District of California provided some much-needed guidance when it granted a motion to preliminarily certify a collective in a lawsuit alleging that an AI-based applicant screening system discriminated against individuals aged 40 and older. In  Mobley v. Workday, Inc. ,  the plaintiffs claimed they received hundreds of rejections without interviews after applying for jobs through Workday—a provider of human resource management software, including platforms connecting employers with job applicants. According to the plaintiffs, Workday’s AI-driven applicant f iltering algorithm disproportionately disqualified individuals over 40 from employment opportunities. Plaintiffs sought preliminary certification of a nationwide collective under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), propo...

  I got way off track. I'm sorry. Here is our real topic for the day. An employer got sued for age discrimination after it fired its DEI Director. Never a good idea to discriminate against your DEI Director, of all people. (Allegedly.) The employer tried to get the case dismissed on summary judgment, but a federal judge in Tennessee (Trump appointee)  denied the motion , meaning that the case will go to a jury. According to the court, the employer had not three, but seven, strikes against it. That means the employer struck out 2 and 1/3 times (I guess there were a couple of foul balls).  Play-by-Play The Plaintiff was hired at age 52 to be the DEI Director for a university in Tennessee (not that big orange one in Knoxville – a different one). According to her supervisors, for the first five years of her employment, she did a good job. Then she got some new supervisors . . . when she was about 58. The new bosses said that the Plaintiff’s diversity programming was ho-hum, ...

  Learn from a real employer's mistakes. Imagine this scenario: You are advertising for an open position. You get three applicants: Applicant 1 meets or exceeds all of your requirements. Applicant 2 fails to meet your minimum requirements. Applicant 3 meets some of your minimum requirements, but not all.  You interview all three, and what do you do? Oooooh, Robin, pick me! Pick me! Make an offer to #1! I said to "imagine" this scenario, but it's a real-life scenario from a real-life lawsuit. Rather than extend an offer to Applicant 1, the employer in this case offered the job to  both  Applicant 2 and Applicant 3. In other words, it hired two people even though only one position was vacant, and even though Applicant 1 was far more qualified than the others. (Applicant 2 was later moved into a different position for which she was presumably qualified.) "UMM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE IN A YOUNGER, LESS-DISABLED -- ER, I MEAN DIFFERENT -- DIRECTION."  Allow me to i...