Since 1992
Print and digital marketing
AUGUSTA — A March 7 Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision determined that Maine State law forbidding age discrimination in the workplace applies the same strict legal standards on employers as in race and sex bias cases, an important ruling for the state’s older workers, the AARP said in a news release.
AARP Foundation Litigation filed a friend of the court, or amicus, brief for AARP on the side of workers challenging their termination by Shaw’s Supermarkets in 2012, according to the release.
Lorraine Scamman, along with other plaintiffs in the case, worked at Shaw’s Supermarkets until Shaw’s terminated her full-time employment in 2012 as part of a reduction in the company’s workforce, the release said. Shaw’s laid off only_ _full-time employees in the move, and because full-time employees were, on average, older than their part-time counterparts, the layoffs affected more older workers than younger employees.
The court ruled that employers trying to justify neutral policies or practices that have a significant adverse disparate impact on older workers must show that they adopted such a challenged policy or practice out of business necessity, the release said. Part of that test is a requirement that an employer look for alternative equally effective means to accomplish the same goals as the challenged practices that have a less adverse impact on older workers.
Shaw’s Supermarkets argued that standards in federal law more favorable to employers — under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act — also should apply under Maine law. Shaw’s contended that an employer only should have to show that an age-neutral practice hurting the job opportunities of older workers is reasonable and not that it is justified by business necessity. Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court rejected that claim because the ADEA language that creates a “reasonable factor other than age” defense does not appear in Maine human rights law.
Lori Parham, AARP Maine state director, said, “The court fully agreed with AARP, the older workers who brought the case, and the Maine Human Rights Commission which also weighed in on the older workers’ side. This decision preserves a key tool for older workers in Maine who are disadvantaged at work, but cannot show ‘smoking gun evidence’ of their employer’s intent to fire them based on ageism.”
