The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether state and local government workers may file constitutional claims of age discrimination, instead of pursuing their complaints under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — an issue on which lower federal courts are split. The case is Madigan v. Levin (12-872). That was one of three cases accepted for review, with oral arguments and decisions in each to be held next Term.
Click here for detail about Madigan v. Levin, here's the fancy desscription of the case:
Issue: Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding, in an acknowledged departure from the rule in at least four other circuits, that state and local government employees may avoid the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s comprehensive remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims directly under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Click here for background on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and click here for the facts of the case as outlined in the circuit court opinion.
From what I can tell, and older white guy - a lawyer - was fired from the Illinois Attorney General's office and replaced with a younger woman. The employer claims that he was let go due to "low productivity, excessive socializing, inferior litigation skills, and poor judgment," but he is claiming age discrimination and apparently wants to pursue the case under the constitution's Equal Protection Clause. It seems that the case is simply about whether he can do so.
Remember when we discussed discrimination under the law in 2305, we mentioned that the hurdle for discriminating on the basis of age is rather low. The defendant seems to want to prove that even that low standard was not met by the state.
