A preview of coming attractions!

You snooze, you lose, the court said. (In so many words.)

(Not an actual letter from Mr. Kleber.

(Not an actual letter from Mr. Kleber.)

Last week, I received a scathing comment from Dale Kleber, a Chicago-area lawyer and a plaintiff in an age discrimination lawsuit. Mr. Kleber did not like my gut reaction to his lawsuit, which was based on an article that I’d read in The Washington Post. It appeared to me that Mr. Kleber — then a 58-year-old lawyer with roughly 30 years of experience, including experience as a CEO of a dairy industry trade group, Chief Legal Counsel, and General Counsel — was rejected for a low-level in-house staff attorney position because he was overqualified for the position, not because he was 58 years old.

Prompted by Mr. Kleber’s comment, I have now read the court papers (well, a lot of them, anyway).*

*Mr. Kleber’s case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but it is still in the very early stages. For you procedural nerds, I’ve included a summary at the end of this post. Non-nerds can skip it.

Now that I know more about Mr. Kleber’s lawsuit, I haven’t changed my mind. In other words, I still think he was rejected for being overqualified.

Can’t “overqualified” be a code word for “too old”? Yes, but not necessarily. Read on!

(You've been warned.)

As I reported Tuesday, a federal judge has ruled that the wellness regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are invalid. Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia did not vacate the rules but remanded them to the EEOC to address the rules' "failings." Now that I've had a chance to read the decision, I ...

I've written here and here about the lawsuit filed by the AARP against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, seeking to invalidate the EEOC regulations relating to wellness programs and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

On Wednesday, the EEOC filed a motion asking the court to throw out the lawsuit. The EEOC argues ...

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has denied the AARP's request for a preliminary injunction against the wellness rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last May. As a result, the EEOC rules -- which establish when participation in an employer-sponsored wellness program is "voluntary" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is only the latest in a string of federal agencies who've been sued recently in an effort to stop their regulations from taking effect.

We have the two lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Labor challenging the overtime rule that is scheduled to take effect on ...

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled this week that obesity is not a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- even as amended in 2009 -- unless the condition was caused by some underlying physiological disorder.

In addition, if the individual develops a medical condition because of the obesity (such as diabetes or ...

If the AARP can't win summary judgment in an age discrimination case, then who can?

Who'd believe that the American Association of Retired Persons would fire somebody because she was too old?

Who, indeed. The organization recently won a nice summary judgment victory in an age discrimination suit brought in federal court in New ...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has come out with a decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act that pretty much confirms all of our worst fears about the scope of that new law.

And I think the Court's legal analysis was 100 percent correct.

Sorry, employers, but the Fourth Circuit nailed it.

The Fourth Circuit hears appeals from federal ...