NCJ Number
199248
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 27 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2003 Pages: 87-108
Date Published
February 2003
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the relationship between reduction-in-force (RIF) personnel practices, presentation of statistical evidence, and litigation outcomes.
Abstract
Allegations of age discrimination often accompany an organizational downsizing effort, and the associated litigation may have serious consequences for the organization and the individual parties involved. This study examined factors such as organizational personnel practices, plaintiff characteristics, and the use of statistical evidence that commonly arise in RIF age discrimination litigation. Age discrimination RIF lawsuits are brought under either a disparate treatment theory of discrimination, an adverse impact theory of discrimination, or both. The disparate treatment theory of discrimination requires proof of a motive to discriminate, and such proof may consist of direct, indirect, or both types of evidence. Adverse impact lawsuits are typically class actions involving a group of laid off employees that lost their jobs in a single downsizing event. The goal of this research was to determine what variables were related to decisions in RIP age discrimination cases when an individual plaintiff alleged disparate treatment. A legal database was used to locate Federal district court cases decided in the 5-year period between October 1, 1993, and October 1, 1998. The results provide empirical evidence of key linkages between personnel practices and judicial verdict. The findings indicate that personnel practices at the time of an organizational RIF were subject to legal scrutiny, and that certain personnel practices were especially relevant to an inference of age discrimination. All 115 RIF cases in the study were litigated at the summary judgment phase. Findings suggest that the defendant organization will prevail if it has a layoff policy, it has documented poor performance, layoff decisions were reviewed, capabilities of personnel were assessed, laid off workers were not replaced, and a constant decisionmaker was used in hiring and firing actions. The presentation of statistical evidence did not aid plaintiffs or defendants at the aggregate level, yet the use of informative comparative statistics by the plaintiff was associated with a greater likelihood of a favorable verdict, as compared to cases involving only raw statistical evidence. 2 tables, 192 references