Davies was 63 years old and had worked as a debt collector for the employer for five and a half years. One day his employer advised him that it had lost a major client and would have to lay him off “temporarily,” effective immediately. The employer said he hoped Davies would be back at work full-time soon and informed him that his benefits would be continued in the meantime. Approximately two months later, the employer recalled Davies to work, offering him the same salary and position. Although he had not found another job, Davies ignored the recall because he was upset by the way he had been treated. Instead he sued for constructive dismissal, arguing that his employer did not have an “implied” right to lay him off under the terms of his employment contract. The employer argued that Davies had failed to mitigate his damages. How do you think a judge would decide this case?

Davies was 63 years old and had worked as a debt collector for the employer for five and a half years. One day his employer advised him that it had lost a major client and would have to lay him off “temporarily,” effective immediately. The employer said he hoped Davies would be back at work full-time soon and informed him that his benefits would be continued in the meantime. Approximately two months later, the employer recalled Davies to work, offering him the same salary and position. Although he had not found another job, Davies ignored the recall because he was upset by the way he had been treated. Instead he sued for constructive dismissal, arguing that his employer did not have an “implied” right to lay him off under the terms of his employment contract. The employer argued that Davies had failed to mitigate his damages.

How do you think a judge would decide this case?

 

 

Answer:

Under this case, the federa Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) can be applied against the employer where under the law, it is unlawful to treate someone (an employee majorly) less favorably than others because of his or her age. Note that this law is applicable to employees who are aged 40 or older. Here Davies was 63 years old and had worked as a debt collector for the employer for five and a half years. For another reason, as it must have been mentioned in the labor contract, an advance notice must be necessary. Laying him off “temporarily,” effective immediately is unjustified.

Asked on February 14, 2018 in economics.
Add Comment
0 Answer(s)
  • Votes
  • Oldest

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.