Emloyment Law Group - Law Firms - Whistleblower Lawyers
Live Chat Contact Us 24/7 Email US
Contact Us: Live Chat, Call, Email Chat email



Use of this form does not establish an attorney-client relationship. As a next
step, you will hear from a client specialist.



Our Clients in Their
Own Words
Play Video: Whistleblower Attorney Testimonials | Wendell Carter
Previous Video
Next Video
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP®

Toll Free: 1-888-826-5260
Fax: 202-261-2835

inquiry@employmentlawgroup.com

Employment Law Group Addresses
The Employment Law Group,PC. BBB Business Review

Bloomberg Interviews TELG Managing Principal R. Scott Oswald on Age Discrimination Litigation in the Wake of Gross


Posted on December 30, 2012
Share

Bloomberg BNA published a Q&A with R. Scott Oswald, managing principal of The Employment Law Group® on recent developments affecting attorneys who represent employees who have been the victims of age discrimination in the workplace.

In the interview, age discrimination attorney Oswald discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Supreme’s court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc.

Regarding Gross, which held that “but-for” causation must be demonstrated to prove disparate discrimination under the ADEA, Oswald noted that “the decision does not, in any way, mean the death knell of the ADEA”.  Oswald noted that “the real test is in other statutes, such as the ADA, FMLA, and USERRA…as the courts have split on whether the causation standards established in the Gross decision apply to other statutes.”

According to Oswald, “the Gross decision dealt directly with the ADEA only” and federal case law which permits a motivating factor test to apply to other anti-discrimination statutes such as the ADA and FMLA, “is appropriate and should remain good law.”

Oswald also noted that the Gross case only applies in discrimination cases involving evidence of a discriminatory disparate impact, not in cases in which there is direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  Therefore, employees who “show direct evidence of discrimination will still be able to survive summary judgment and proceed to trial.”

Finally, regarding the use of circumstantial evidence in the wake of the Gross decision, Oswald commented that “employee lawyers are no longer doing to be able to rely on statistics alone” to prove demonstration, but will have to use pretext evidence, such as showing that “an employer has deviated form its own protocols in taking action against an employee, such as treating other employers different from the older worker.”

The article, entitled “Q&A: ‘But-For’ Standard Keeps Plaintiffs’ Lawyers on Their Toes”, was originally published on December 18, 2012.

R. Scott Oswald represents employees in whistleblower and discrimination cases, regularly speaks on employment law issues, and has offered testimony to the EEOC calling on the agency to strengthen its enforcement of age discrimination laws.

greybar
blueline
facebook logo twitter logo google plus logo
Home  |  What We Do  |  Our Team  |  Our Clients  |  In The News  |  Resources  |  Contact Us


Our Locations: Washington, D.C. | San Francisco | Los Angeles

© 2017 The Employment Law Group, P.C. - All rights reserved.
Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy