About Us
- The Dartmouth Civil Liberties Union (DCLU) was founded in July, 2003 by Jedidiah I. Sorokin-Altmann ?05 and Adil W. Ahmad ?05 to promote a better understanding of civil rights and liberties in the Dartmouth College community. DCLU is a non-partisan organization.
|
|
RSS/XML Feed
Links
Dartmouth
- - Dartmouth College
- - Dartmouth News
- - The Dartmouth
- - Dartmouth Civil Liberties Union
- - Dartmouth Free Press
- - The Dartmouth Review
- - Web Blitz
ACLU
- - American Civil Liberties Union
- - NH Civil Liberties Union
- - Dartmouth Civil Liberties Union
- - ACLU affiliates and chapters
Other Organizations
News and Opinions
- - BBC
- - Boston Globe
- - Boston Herald
- - The Chicago Sun Times
- - Chicago Tribune
- - CNN
- - Daily Telegraph
- - The Economist
- - Financial Times
- - Fox News
- - The Guardian
- - Haaretz
- - The Independent
- - International Herald Tribune
- - The Los Angeles Times
- - MSNBC
- - The New York Times
- - The New York Post
- - The Observer
- - The Opinion Journal
- - Reuters
- - The Seattle Times
- - The San Francisco Chronicle
- - The Times of London
- - The Times of India
- - The Union Leader
- - The Wall Street Journal
- - The Washington Post
- - The Washington Times
- - World Newspapers
New York Times News
- - The Dartmouth Observer
- - Free Dartmouth
- - Dartblogs
- - Smarter Dartmouth
- - TDR's Dartlog
- - The Inner Office
- - Chechnya
- - Lisa Chau
- - Essential Stevenson
Dartmouth Blogs
Archives
Thursday, November 13, 2003
NYT: Justices Mull Twist in Law on Age Bias
Justices Mull Twist in Law on Age Bias: "When Congress made it illegal 36 years ago for employers to discriminate on the basis of age, it was clear that older workers were protected from discriminatory treatment that favored those who were younger. The question in a Supreme Court argument on Wednesday was whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act also meant the reverse: if Congress in addition meant to prohibit policies that favor older workers over younger ones.
The plain language of the statute suggests one interpretation, while the context in which the law was enacted in 1967 suggests the opposite. An employer shall not discriminate against someone 'because of such individual's age,' the law reads, without specifying 'older age' or 'younger age.' The law's protection begins at age 40 and has no upper limit."
The plain language of the statute suggests one interpretation, while the context in which the law was enacted in 1967 suggests the opposite. An employer shall not discriminate against someone 'because of such individual's age,' the law reads, without specifying 'older age' or 'younger age.' The law's protection begins at age 40 and has no upper limit."
