Recent news reports have reported that there has been an increase in employment law cases with the weakened economy. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the filing of job bias claims has hit an unprecented level. The EEOC reported over 95,000 claims were filed in the 2008 fiscal year. This certainly sounds like good news for employment lawyers. But it's not all good news for Plaintiffs. Under federal law such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, most cases are decided under a burden shifting analysis pursuant to a United States Supreme Court Case handed down in the 1970s. Under this analysis, an employer can successfully defend a case by demonstrating a legitimate business reason for the discharge of an employee. A bad economy is a legitimate buisness reason.
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the United States Supreme Court set forth a three step analysis in determining whether a plaintiff can prove a case of wrongful discharge. The first step of the analysis is a relatively simple burden to meet. The plaintiff need only show that he can state a prima facie case. By way of example, in an age discrimination case the plaintiff can meet this burden if he demonstrates that he is over the age of 40 and replaced by an employee in his early 20s. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer is then required to set forth a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the discharge. Most lawyers refer to this step as the "business reason". If the employer sets forth a business reason for the discharge, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer's business reason is not believable. In most employment law cases, the fight is in this last step of the analysis.
A bad economy is ceratinly considered a business reason for dicharging an employee. While EEOC and court filings may be on the rise, we may see a decrease in the number of successful plaintiff verdicts.
