Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Essay

1265 Words 6 Pages
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

The "2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals" held that those business practices that have had a disparate impact 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. The appeals court supported the idea that a layoff plan had been properly brought under the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) although the company did not have the intention of discriminating.

The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that
…show more content…
The court agrees as evidenced by this case. The ruling of the court reasoned that if in fact so many older individuals got the brunt of company policy, then in fact they were effectively discriminated against. This is true even though there was no malice or intent to dismiss older individuals. Historically, there have been charges that individuals are let go because they cost the company more in terms of salary and benefits. Yet, it is difficult to prove. This case provides an example that renders proof of discrimination somewhat easier.

At the age of 30, I have yet to be discriminated against due to my age. This case protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.


In a 2003 case, an employee tested positive for drugs and in this case it was Cocaine ("Supreme," 2003). He then admitted that the behavior he engaged in violated workplace rules and he was made to resign. Two years after the incident, he tried to get rehired, and he stated that he is in recovery and is a member of AA and so forth. He was denied employment because the organization has a policy of not rehiring people who had engaged n workplace misconduct in the past (2003). The respondent filed
Open Document