On June 19th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled for older workers in an age discrimination case that assigned employers the responsibility of providing proof that layoffs or other actions that disproportionately affect older workers are not based on age, but on some other “reasonable factor.” The Supreme Court’s 7-1 decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that charged employees with the burden of disproving the employers’ defense that their actions were based on reasonable factors.

The case was brought by 28 former employees of Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory located in upstate New York. In 1996, Knolls was required to reduce its workforce and managers were directed to evaluate their employees based on values such as “performance,” “flexibility,” and “critical skills.” Knolls subsequently laid off 31 employees, 30 of which were over the age of 40, the age at which protection begins under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will inevitably make it more difficult for employers to defend themselves against allegations of violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, but as Justice David. H. Souter states in his writing of the majority opinion, the statute made it clear that the defense was “entirely the responsibility of the party raising it.”

In a victory for house buyers, the Iowa Supreme Court issuedMuchos errores ocurren en un juego de компютри втора употребаparty poker bajo estas circunstancias. its ruling in the case Speight v. Walters Development Co., Ltd., on February 1, 2008.  The Court reversed long standing case law that prevented a subsequent buyer of a house from recovering damages from the original contractor.  Before the Speight case, only the original buyer of the property could sue the contractor.  The Iowa Supreme Court relied upon an implied warranty of workmanlike construction to protect an innocent homebuyer by holding the experienced builder responsible, for both the quality and construction of the building.  The Court further found that the house should be constructed in a reasonable and workmanlike manner and be reasonably fit for the intended purpose.

While other states outside of Iowa are split on the issue, some allowing subsequent purchasers to recover for a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction and others not allowing recovery, the Iowa Court in its ruling follows what it believes to be the modern trend.  The Court held that in today’s mobile society it would be an injustice to those who purchase a house from a previous buyer shortly after the home was constructed to deny the subsequent purchaser who later discovers the home was defectively constructed the ability to recover.  The Iowa Court reasoned that if the builder warrants that a home was constructed in a workmanlike manner for the original purchaser that warranty should carry over to subsequent purchasers.  The Court found that did not increase the builder’s risk because the builder had already made the guarantee to the original purchaser.  The Court also noted that the liability doesn’t run forever.  The liability will run anywhere from five years after the date of discovery of the defect for up to a maximum of fifteen years.  In other words, if you are a subsequent buyer and you have the property for more than five years with a known defect existing, you will be barred from recovery.  You must file your lawsuit within 5 years of discovery of the defect.  Likewise, if you purchase the house fifteen years after its construction, you will be barred from recovery, as the builder is only liable for 15 years after the house is built. 
 

Welcome to the Putnam Law Office Blog Page.  We will be updating this site periodically.  Please visit this site in the near future.