Let’s suppose that a company is losing buckets of money, and needs to cut costs to stay afloat. It might start cutting back on various perks — a company jet, health club memberships for employees, whatever. And it might make the business judgment that cutting more expensive perks first is the smartest decision. But under California law, applying the same logic to employees — that the more expensive ones ought to be replaced first — can get an employer sued. Ask Circuit City, which laid off more than 3,000 employees last week, only to be hit with a lawsuit seeking class action status:
“The workers terminated were those with greater seniority and length of service — mostly likely the older members of the work force,” the lawsuit said. It cites California law, which states that “the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may … constitute age discrimination.”
The wisdom of the California legislature never ceases to astound. The law does not require evidence of discriminatory intent on the part of the employer; the mere fact that older workers were disproportionately affected by the layoffs may be sufficient.
2 Comments
Seems like it should be grounds for a second lawsuit, because they must have previously been discriminating against the younger employees by paying them less than older ones. And then maybe a third, because I’m sure there is a way to find that women are also be discriminated against.
. . And a fourth lawsuit if you’re not tech-savvy you can’t work at Circuit City, a fifth if you don’t speak a second language [read: Spanish], a sixth if they don’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in some arcane way, a seventh because of Section 17200 problems, an eighth . . . Where does it end?