Staub v Proctor Hospital A case about job discrimination
Staub v. Proctor Hospital: A case about job discrimination
The case was brought by Vincent Staub, who from his job as an angiography technician in 2004 because of his service in the U.S. Army Reserve. Staub’s immediate supervisor had openly denigrated his military duties and placed him on weekend work rotations that conflicted with his scheduled drill and training obligations. Eventually, his supervisor influenced the hospital’s human-resources department to fire him. What’s at stake. As in this term's Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP case, the Court’s decision is certain to apply to other federal antidiscrimination laws. Age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have been rising for the past several years and hit in fiscal 2008. Complaints about other forms of discrimination have also been on the rise. Where AARP stands. AARP has sided with Staub and believes that the court’s decision is certain to be applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal antidiscrimination laws. How the Court Ruled In a unanimous decision issued on March 1, the Court handed Staub a victory by throwing out the federal appeals court ruling that favored the hospital where he worked.
The decision will make it easier for individuals to sue private employers for discrimination based on hostility to their military service.
The written by Justice Antonin Scalia, holds that "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA ."
Time will tell the ruling's impact on other job discrimination laws.
Staub's case now goes back to the appeals court, which must decide whether to reinstate a jury verdict in his favor or order a new trial.
Cancel You are leaving AARP.org and going to the website of our trusted provider. The provider’s terms, conditions and policies apply. Please return to AARP.org to learn more about other benefits. Your email address is now confirmed. You'll start receiving the latest news, benefits, events, and programs related to AARP's mission to empower people to choose how they live as they age. You can also by updating your account at anytime. You will be asked to register or log in. Cancel Offer Details Disclosures
Staub v Proctor Hospital A Case About Job Discrimination
Can a biased employee engineer a colleague' s firing
The Court is considering under what circumstances an employer can be held liable when a lower-level manager causes — but does not carry out — a discriminatory employment decision.Related
Listen to the Court’s oral arguments for Staub v. Proctor Hospital.The case was brought by Vincent Staub, who from his job as an angiography technician in 2004 because of his service in the U.S. Army Reserve. Staub’s immediate supervisor had openly denigrated his military duties and placed him on weekend work rotations that conflicted with his scheduled drill and training obligations. Eventually, his supervisor influenced the hospital’s human-resources department to fire him. What’s at stake. As in this term's Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP case, the Court’s decision is certain to apply to other federal antidiscrimination laws. Age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have been rising for the past several years and hit in fiscal 2008. Complaints about other forms of discrimination have also been on the rise. Where AARP stands. AARP has sided with Staub and believes that the court’s decision is certain to be applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal antidiscrimination laws. How the Court Ruled In a unanimous decision issued on March 1, the Court handed Staub a victory by throwing out the federal appeals court ruling that favored the hospital where he worked.
The decision will make it easier for individuals to sue private employers for discrimination based on hostility to their military service.
The written by Justice Antonin Scalia, holds that "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA ."
Time will tell the ruling's impact on other job discrimination laws.
Staub's case now goes back to the appeals court, which must decide whether to reinstate a jury verdict in his favor or order a new trial.
Cancel You are leaving AARP.org and going to the website of our trusted provider. The provider’s terms, conditions and policies apply. Please return to AARP.org to learn more about other benefits. Your email address is now confirmed. You'll start receiving the latest news, benefits, events, and programs related to AARP's mission to empower people to choose how they live as they age. You can also by updating your account at anytime. You will be asked to register or log in. Cancel Offer Details Disclosures