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.

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.

What a week for aging. According to one study, people age 65 and older will outnumber people age 15 and younger worldwide by the year 2030. This is referred to as a "population plague."

In more bad news for younger older people, Lydia DePillis, writing for The Washington Post, had an article titled "Baby boomers are taking on ageism -- and losing." From ...

Wednesday night the Los Angeles jury hearing the age and disability discrimination case of former sports columnist T.J. Simers came back with a verdict in his favor of $7.1 million, consisting of retro and future lost income, and retro and future pain and suffering. (The jury did not award punitive damages.)

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles ...

As I always say, "What do I know?"

Based on the information I had, I felt that this should have been a summary judgment case for the Los Angeles Times. But the jury in Los Angeles did not agree. Law360 (and some of our readers - thank you!) reports that the jury came back with a verdict for former sports columnist T.J. Simers in his age and disability discrimination case of $7.2 million. Mr ...

T.J. Simers, a well-known former sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times, is suing the Times for age and disability discrimination and is seeking $18 million. We're providing regular coverage and analysis of the jury trial, which has been going on for several weeks. If you are just joining us, you can find the links to my prior coverage of the trial at the end of this post.

Whatever ...

T.J. Simers, a well-known former sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times, is suing the Times for age and disability discrimination. We're providing regular coverage of the jury trial, which is expected to last about three more weeks. For the background on what the case is all about, go here. For the testimony of Mr. Simers' psychiatrist last  week, go here. For a roundup of all of ...

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 ...

T.J. Simers, a well-known former sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times, is suing the Times for age and disability discrimination. We're providing regular coverage of the jury trial, which is expected to last about four more weeks. For the background on Mr. Simers' termination, go here. For the testimony of Mr. Simers' psychiatrist earlier this week, go here.

Duel of the ...

Our continuing coverage of the T.J. Simers age and disability discrimination trial . . . er . . . continues.

The psychiatrist for sports columnist T.J. Simers testified yesterday that Mr. Simers has major depressive disorder and general anxiety as a result of his demotion by the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Simers is suing the Times for age and disability discrimination in connection with his ...