|
What are your views on this intriguing case currently before the US Supreme
Court?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBB1IFL31E.html
The issue here seems to be whether an employer should be allowed to grant
new hires (and 'junior' employees) pay increases disproportionally higher
than more senior employees.
It begs the question "If all these so-called senior employees were under 40
years of age would there even be consideration of an age discrimination
claim?"
I think not as the courts have held that an employer has the legal right to
adopt such a policy.
So the question before the court seems to be what if the impacted employees
are at least 40 years of age. Does this qualify as a disparate impact claim
under the 1967 anti-discrimination law?
I find the following argument before the court today somewhat persuasive.
"Judicial sanctioning of disparate impact claims would unduly restricted the
ability of government employers to manage their work forces and provide
cost-effective public services."
Frankly I am a bit surprised that the Supreme Court even agreed to hear this
case as it seems like the appellate court ruling is a no brainer.
What are your views?
Michael T.
|
| |
| |
This happens all the time in higher ed. In many fields (including computer
science, my own) you must offer starting salaries to prospects for junior
positions that may match or exceed the salaries of full professors who have
been teaching at the same institution for decades. In my view (IANAL) this
isn't discrimination, it's the free market - you've got to pay what the
market demands if you want to hire qualified faculty, and just hope that
your senior faculty don't jump ship to another university.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
|
