Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Title VII Age Discrimination Cases
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 17 page paper discusses seven legal cases where the topic of dispute is age discrimination. Bibliography lists 7 sources
Page Count:
17 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HV7agdsc.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
al, (02-1080) 540 U.S. 581 (2004) 296 F.3d 466. 11 Gomez-Perez v. Potter (No. 06-1321) 476 F. 3d 54 4, 5, 6 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91
S.Ct. 849, 853, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971) 14 Hurlic v. Southern California Gas, No. 06-55599 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008) 15 Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. Of Ed., 544 U.S. 167 5 Meacham v.
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (No. 06-1505) 461 F. 3d 134 2, 3, 4 Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U. S. 228 3 Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 5
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. (00-1853) 534 U.S. 506 (2002) 14, 15 Introduction Title VII is actually part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it is Subchapter VI of
Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e. The section prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on religion, color, race, sex or national origin; it is the yardstick that is
used to measure age discrimination as well. This paper considers seven Title VII age discrimination cases. Discussion Most of the suits went all the way through the system and were
heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. They are examined in no particular order. The first is Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (No. 06-1505) 461 F. 3d 134. It was
argued before the Supreme Court on April 23, 2008 and decided June 19, 2008. The case is as follows: the federal government ordered Knolls, which is one of its contractors,
to cut its workforce (Meacham, 2008). In order to accomplish this, Knolls managers scored their employees on the factors of "flexibility," "performance" and "critical skills" and these scores, "along with
points for years of service, were used to determine who was laid off" (Meacham, 2008). Thirty-one employees were terminated, of these 30 were over the age of 40; the plaintiffs
...