ACTUALLY CORPORATE AMERICA CAN

ACTUALLY CORPORATE AMERICA CAN LAY OFF ALMOST EVERY WORKER OVER 45 AND KEEP ALMOST EVERY WORKER UNDER 35 AND GET AWAY WITH IT THE SUPREME COURT LITERALLY WROTE THE PLAYBOOK AND TOLD THEM EXACTLY HOW TO DO IT YOU SEE IN 2009 THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON A CASE CALLED GROSS VERSUS FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES JACK GROSS WAS 54 YEARS OLD HIS COMPANY REASSIGNED HIS ROLE TO A YOUNGER WOMAN AND GAVE HER ALMOST ALL OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES THE JURY SIDE WITH GROSS BUT THEN THE COMPANY APPEALED AND THE SUPREME COURT USED THIS CASE TO REWRITE THE RULES FOR EVERY AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM SENSE UNDER MOST DISCRIMINATION CASES YOU CAN WIN BY SHOWING THAT YOUR PROTECTED TRAIT WAS A MOTIVATING IN WHATEVER DECISION THE COMPANY MADE THIS GOES FOR RACE DISABILITY THAT'S THE STANDARD BUT AGE IS DIFFERENT AND THE COURT RULED THAT YOU HAD TO PROVE THAT AGE WAS THE BUT FOR CAUSE NOT JUST ONE FACTOR AMONG MANY BUT THE DECIDING ONE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NEVER ON THE EMPLOYER EVEN IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT AGE PLAYED A ROLE SO WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE IS A COMPANY RUNS A LAYOFF KEEPS ALMOST EVERYONE UNDER 35 MAYBE THEY LET GO OF ALMOST EVERYONE OVER 45 THEY STILL WIN IN COURT IF THEY CAN PROVE OR POINT TO ONE OTHER REASON A COST SAVINGS A RESTRUCTURING A REDUNDANT ROLE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THAT REASON OVERLAPS PERFECTLY WITH AGE COURTS ARE GOING TO CALL THAT A REASONABLE FACTOR OTHER THAN AGE IT IS A LEGAL SHIELD THE SUPREME COURT BUILT IT AND THIS IS WHY EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LOOK AT REAL DATA AND THEY CALL IT MESSY THE SUPREME COURT BUILT THE LEGAL STANDARD TO MAKE AGE DISCRIMINATION THE HARDEST TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION TO PROVE AND THAT'S WHY COMPANIES WITH THAT ARE BUILT FOR YEARS OF LITIGATION KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN THE LAYOFF NUMBERS SKEW THIS YOUNG FOLLOW ME IF YOU WANT TO BE FRIENDS WITH SOMEONE WHO READS WHITE PAPERS FOR FUN AND MAYBE SHARE THIS WITH THE NEXT PERSON THAT TELLS YOU TO JUST SUE THEM