TAILIEUCHUNG - Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 1 P19

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 1 P19 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 168 AGE DISCRIMINATION Charges Filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA 1998 to 2008 source . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement Statistics and Litigation available online at http stats accessed on August 12 2009 . ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. employers can serve as a charge or basis for a lawsuit under the ADEA. Under the ADEA the employees are required to wait 60 days after filing their formal complaint with the EEOC before they can file a lawsuit. In this case the plaintiff filed her intake questionnaire and had attached to it a six-page sworn affidavit outlining her allegations of discrimination. Then after the 60-day waiting period she filed her lawsuit with the court. Federal Express moved to dismiss her case arguing that her intake questionnaire was not a formal charge alleging discrimination under the ADEA and thus she filed her lawsuit prematurely prior to the expiration of the 60-day waiting period. in a ruling for the plaintiff the Supreme Court held that the formal intake questionnaire constituted a formal charge of discrimination under the ADEA. Landmark Discrimination Cases A number of landmark cases have interpreted the ADEA since its passage. Western Air Lines v. Criswell 472 . 400 105 S. Ct. 2743 86 L. Ed. 2d 321 1985 set out the guidelines for defending an age limit based on the BFOQ exception. Western required flight engineers who are members of the flight crew but generally do not operate flight controls to retire at age 60. When this policy was challenged the airline maintained that the age limit was a BFOQ necessary to ensure safety. The Supreme Court disagreed and in a unanimous decision announced a two-pronged test to be applied when evaluating a BFOQ based on safety 1 whether the age limit is reasonably necessary to the overriding interest in public safety and 2 whether the employer is justified in .