Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Potter (2008), the Supreme Court allowed federal workers, who experience retaliation as a result of reporting age discrimination under the law, to sue for damages. [10] In Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), the Supreme Court held that state employees cannot sue states for monetary damages under the ADEA in federal court. [11]
The Older Americans Amendments of 1975 (Pub. L. 94–135) is an Act of the 94th U.S. Congress amending the Older Americans Act of 1965. It prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance, for instance, financial assistance to schools and colleges, provided by the U.S. Department of ...
Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater protection to employees of the state or of state contractors. The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included as well, since federal law only covers workers over 40.
I don’t just mean the obvious cases, such as the recent cases against Elon Musk’s X for laying off workers older than 50 at a disproportionate rate or the Meathead Movers case being brought by ...
A "Backlog Unit" was created in Philadelphia in 1978 to resolve the thousands of federal equal employment complaints inherited from the Civil Service Commission. In 1980, Eleanor Holmes Norton began re-characterizing the backlog cases as "workload" in her reports to Congress, thus fulfilling her promise to eliminate the backlog. [40]
(The Center Square) – Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias is advising residents to avoid confusion about the federal government’s upcoming deadline to comply with the REAL ID mandate.
1974 – Supplemental Security Income, a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either blind or otherwise disabled, or aged 65 or older [107] was created in 1974 to replace federal-state adult assistance programs that served the same purpose.
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.