Who Has the Burden of Proof in Disparate Impact Age Discrimination Cases?
A group of workers whose jobs were eliminated in 1996 by Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), a defense contractor, are challenging the Second Circuit’s decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 461 F.3d 134 (2006). In Meacham, the Second Circuit overturned a $5 million verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor on the basis that they failed to carry their burden of proving that KAPL’s job elimination decision had a disparate impact on older employees because KAPL did not rely on “reasonable factors other than age” in their decision-making process. The plaintiffs’ case arose when, in 1996, KAPL selected 31 employees for layoff and all but one were over the age of 40. KAPL claimed its decision was based on the comparative performance of employees, critical skills, ability to perform more than one job and years of service with KAPL. When the Second Circuit first reviewed the case in August 2004, it initially upheld the $5 million jury verdict because it found that KAPL’s reliance on subje
