Editorial - Age Discrimination - NYTimes.com

New York Times | Jul. 6, 2009 (Editorial)

The Supreme Court rewrote the rules for litigating age-discrimination cases in favor of employers. It falls to Congress to undo the damage. Full Story »

Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV - via New York Times (Editorials), New York Times (Opinion)

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: Civil Liberties, U.S. Congress, U.S. Supreme Court
Member Tags: Supreme Court, chronological age, united states politics and government, discrimination, Editorials, age discrimination
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul 7, 2009 - 9:55 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Samuel W. Velsor IV (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul 7, 2009 - 11:57 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Samuel W. Velsor IV
4.7
 by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul. 8, 2009

A most important item of news revealing a grossest error of the Roberts' Supreme Court.

That employees now will have the burden of proof in age discrimination cases is just totally wrong of the Supreme court to have "Written Law" again; Congress must now act to correct this travisty of injustice. Glad to see that Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, agrees.

Samuel posted this story.
See Full Review » (16 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.7

not enough reviews
from 1 review (8% confidence)
Quality
4.7
Facts
5.0
Fairness
5.0
Information
5.0
Insight
5.0
Style
5.0
Context
5.0
Depth
5.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
2.0
Originality
5.0
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.8
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
5.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!