Supreme Court to Hear Cases That Affect Older Workers Javascript must be enabled to use this site. Please enable Javascript in your browser and try again. × Search search POPULAR SEARCHES SUGGESTED LINKS Join AARP for just $9 per year when you sign up for a 5-year term. Get instant access to members-only products and hundreds of discounts, a free second membership, and a subscription to AARP the Magazine. Leaving AARP.org Website You are now leaving AARP.org and going to a website that is not operated by AARP. A different privacy policy and terms of service will apply.
3 Supreme Court Cases That Could Affect Older Workers
Age discrimination disability benefits and mandatory arbitration are some of the key issues
GETTY IMAGES Get instant access to members-only products and hundreds of discounts, a free second membership, and a subscription to AARP the Magazine. Age discrimination in public jobs
Private employers who run businesses that have fewer than 20 employees are exempt from the (ADEA), which is the federal law that protects older workers from age discrimination. In Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, the issue is whether small public agencies also are excluded from ADEA requirements. In 2009, two firefighters — ages 46 and 54 at that time — were fired by the Mount Lemmon Fire District in Arizona. The under the ADEA, and the federal district court ruled in favor of the fire department. But the federal circuit court ruled for the two firefighters. The Supreme Court’s ruling could have a wide impact for older adults working for local and state governments across the country. If the high court decides these small agencies don’t have to follow the federal age discrimination law, these workers will have to rely on whatever protections their states’ laws provide. Social Security disability benefits
More than 2 million people apply for each year. To be eligible, a medical condition must prevent the applicants from working — either in their current positions or other jobs they might be qualified to do — for at least 12 straight months. In many cases, an administrative law judge decides whether a disability applicant is capable of working. In Biestek v. Berryhill, the Supreme Court will decide whether an administrative judge can rely solely on expert testimony, without the underlying data on which the testimony is based, or if more evidence is needed. Michael Biestek, a carpenter, applied for Social Security disability benefits when he was unable to work due to a degenerative disc disease. When he was originally denied benefits, Biestek asked for an administrative hearing to appeal the decision. In that hearing, a vocational expert testified that there were a variety of jobs still available to Biestek despite his condition. But when the former carpenter asked the expert to provide more information about the jobs, the administrative law judge said the expert did not have to respond. The judge ultimately denied Biestek disability benefits. AARP Membership — $12 for your first year when you sign up for Automatic Renewal Get instant access to members-only products and hundreds of discounts, a free second membership, and a subscription to AARP the Magazine. when they do these kinds of jobs. One case before the Supreme Court this term, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, could potentially affect whether independent contractors who work in transportation are able to take their employment disputes to the courts instead of to arbitration. Entertainment $3 off popcorn and soft drink combos See more Entertainment offers > The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) permits companies to require their employees to agree to resolve disagreements in arbitration. But that law has an exemption for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” One question the Supreme Court will answer in the New Prime case is whether this exception applies to independent contractors or just employees. Dominic Oliveira worked as a driver for New Prime, an interstate trucking company. He began as an independent contractor and later was hired as an employee. In 2015, he filed a suit against the company saying that New Prime violated Missouri’s minimum wage statute, among other complaints. New Prime then tried to force the dispute into arbitration, eventually leading the case to the Supreme Court this term. Both the federal district and circuit courts ruled for Oliveira. More on work AARP Membership — $12 for your first year when you sign up for Automatic Renewal Get instant access to members-only products and hundreds of discounts, a free second membership, and a subscription to AARP the Magazine. AARP VALUE & MEMBER BENEFITS See more Health & Wellness offers > See more Flights & Vacation Packages offers > See more Finances offers > See more Health & Wellness offers > SAVE MONEY WITH THESE LIMITED-TIME OFFERS