Research Paper on:
Case Studies in Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
effect on the older workers are now considered to be actionable under one national anti-discrimination law (Hamblett, 2004). The case does reaffirm a second Circuit precedent that had been set  but which is at odds with what a majority of federal courts have held (2004). The appeals court supported the idea that a layoff plan had been properly brought under  the ADEA although the company did not have the intention of discriminating (2004). The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the  jurys findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan (2004). This discrimination was unintentional (2004). However, the policy did have  an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate (2004). The reason for the suit had  to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty (2004). There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial  while some of the others settled with the company on their own (2004). In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2 (2004). The case was appealed  and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim  involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination (2004). The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in  terms of disparate impact (2004) . It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases (2004). The idea that disparate impact