Employment & Labor Insider

That's why they didn't apply, duh. Continue Reading ›

This week in employment law. Continue Reading ›

Don't go off the deep end. Continue Reading ›

Don't quit your current job! Continue Reading ›

Employer going to trial in age discrimination case. Continue Reading ›

The unconditional offer of reinstatement. Continue Reading ›

What takes priority? Continue Reading ›

The world of employment law is ever-changing, and 2023 was no exception. Keeping up with the latest developments can be daunting, but it's necessary for professionals across all industries. That's why we've compiled a list of our top five most popular Employment & Labor Insider blog posts of 2023. Each post offers unique insights, updates, and, of course, a little levity. Join us as we recap these essential reads. Continue Reading ›

Expect to see more of this. Continue Reading ›

You won't want to miss this!!! Continue Reading ›

These six will get the EEOC's attention in 2024-28. Continue Reading ›

It's the law. Continue Reading ›

Inconsistencies were fatal to this employer. Continue Reading ›

Then again, it may have been that "FU" text I sent the boss. Continue Reading ›

Even though the court was right, this stinks. Continue Reading ›

C'mon, Boomers - lighten up! Continue Reading ›

Millennials, can you relate to your older co-workers? Continue Reading ›

How can I sue thee? Let me count the ways. Continue Reading ›

Not sure I'm buying it. Continue Reading ›

I can't imagine why they would. Continue Reading ›

Another chapter in a continuing saga. Continue Reading ›

An argument can be made. Continue Reading ›

Probably. Continue Reading ›

An important victory for age plaintiffs. Continue Reading ›

(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! Continue Reading ›

At a client seminar that my office presented during the very contentious 2016 campaign season, my law partner John Doyle delivered an introductory disclaimer. Although I may not have his words verbatim, I will never forget the message, which was as follows:

The only thing we’re partisan about is employers. That’s it.

It was a great way to dispel the perception that we were being politically partisan while we had to discuss the positive and negative impacts of the candidates’ proposals on employment law issues.

This morning, I got a comment from the plaintiff in an age discrimination lawsuit that I referenced last year, based on an article that had appeared in The Washington Post. Here’s what the plaintiff, Dale Kleber, said to me:

Well, Robin, I was surprised that although you have formal legal training, the article you wrote contains so many factual assumptions that simply are false. I suspect that your firm primarily represents defendant employers and your “analysis” is tainted with the bias of economic self-interest. In the near future, I expect to obtain an objective review of my case from the the Seventh Circuit. Your article, devoid as it is of even the most basic factual or legal analysis is simply an editorial masquerading as a legal newsletter. But perhaps that is what your clients want to hear.

I admit I did not think Mr. Kleber was a victim of age discrimination based on the information in the WaPo article, and I admit that I said so. Reading between the lines on his comment, it appeared to me that he had lost his case (since he was hoping to be vindicated on appeal), but I read the court filings today and it’s more complicated than that. (I’ll have a separate blog post about the merits of Mr. Kleber’s lawsuit, which I think is pretty interesting.)

As far as writing “editorials” on this blog, I plead guilty. This ain’t, after all, The New York Times.

I also admit that I and my firm represent employers, and that we are always on the employers’ side.

But what I’d really like to talk about is what it means to be “on the employers’ side,” or, as John says, “partisan” on behalf of employers. Continue Reading ›

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act recently celebrated its 50th birthday (it doesn't look a day over 49). This calls for an age discrimination quiz!

Question 1: What age group is protected from age discrimination under the ADEA?

A. All age groups. Discrimination based on age is never ok, whether you are young or old.

B. Ages 40 to 70.

C. Ages 40 and up, with no upper limit.

D. Ages 40 and up, unless you are an athlete or a model, in which case it's ages 30 and up.

ANSWER: C. Some states have laws that prohibit all age discrimination -- including discrimination against the young -- but the ADEA doesn't protect people under age 40.

Question 2: Which of the following could be considered "code words" for age discrimination?

A. "We're looking for someone with a high energy level."

B. "We're looking for digital natives."

C. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

D. "Have you given any thought to when you want to retire?"

E. C and D.

F. All of the above. Continue Reading ›