Thanks to a unanimous Supreme Court decision made in June, juries can now rule an employee has been discriminated against based on the standard of whether an employer gave a false reason for terminating the person's job. The recent ruling could impact Pittsburgh employers more than in other areas of the country because of the region's aging population. Mr. Oswalt was not. In ruling in Mr. Reeves' favor in the case, the Supreme Court decided that an age discrimination plaintiff could rely on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.
Discrimination only has to be inferred from the proof of an employer's false explanation.
District Third Court in Pennsylvania already has established the standard. So technically, the Supreme Court ruling won't change the law here. But approval from America's highest court will give the law greater credence, said Mr. Kushner. And because lower court justices will wish not to have their decisions reversed, he expected the ruling could put more age discrimination cases before a jury. Judge and jury Before a jury, employers risk being exposed to bad publicity and judgments that are less predictable than from a judge.