Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983)

2019-10-23T18:11:16Z

Admin moved page Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983)

Admin at 20:19, 27 August 2018

2018-08-27T20:19:00Z

Admin at 01:28, 20 July 2018

2018-07-20T01:28:51Z

Admin at 01:26, 20 July 2018

2018-07-20T01:26:55Z

Admin at 01:25, 20 July 2018

2018-07-20T01:25:38Z

Admin: Created page with "See Age Discrimination"

2018-07-02T18:30:18Z

Created page with "See Age Discrimination"

New page

See [[Age Discrimination]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and its extension to State and local governments in 1974 was justified by Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce. The ADEA made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees between the ages of 40 and 70.
+In ''Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming'' (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and its extension to State and local governments in 1974 was justified by [[U.S. Congress|Congress]]’ authority to regulate interstate commerce. The ADEA made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees between the ages of 40 and 70.
-The Wyoming Game and Fish Department involuntarily retired the 55-year old plaintiff.  He promptly filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that Wyoming violated the ADEA and its 1974 extension. The district court dismissed the suit claiming that if the ADEA sought to regulate Wyoming’s employment practices, then it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment immunity found in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court, however, applying the test found in Usery, held that the ADEA is a valid exercise of Congress’ interstate commerce power, because the Act does not directly impair the State’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
+The Wyoming Game and Fish Department involuntarily retired the 55-year old plaintiff.  He promptly filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that Wyoming violated the ADEA and its 1974 extension. The district court dismissed the suit claiming that if the ADEA sought to regulate Wyoming’s employment practices, then it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment immunity found in ''National League of Cities v. Usery'' (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court, however, applying the test found in ''Usery'', held that the ADEA is a valid exercise of Congress’ interstate commerce power, because the Act does not directly impair the State’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
 Eric Shane Munton and Troy E. Smith

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 20 July 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Eric Shane Munton and Troy E. Smith		Eric Shane Munton and Troy E. Smith
		+
		+	Last updated: July 2018

	See also [[Age Discrimination]]; [[National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)]]		See also [[Age Discrimination]]; [[National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The Wyoming Game and Fish Department involuntarily retired the 55-year old plaintiff.  He promptly filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that Wyoming violated the ADEA and its 1974 extension. The district court dismissed the suit claiming that if the ADEA sought to regulate Wyoming’s employment practices, then it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment immunity found in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court, however, applying the test found in Usery, held that the ADEA is a valid exercise of Congress’ interstate commerce power, because the Act does not directly impair the State’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
-Eric Shane Munton
+Eric Shane Munton and Troy E. Smith
-See also [[Age Discrimination]]
+See also [[Age Discrimination]]; [[National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 20 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	See [[Age Discrimination]]	+	In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and its extension to State and local governments in 1974 was justified by Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce. The ADEA made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees between the ages of 40 and 70.
		+
		+	The Wyoming Game and Fish Department involuntarily retired the 55-year old plaintiff. He promptly filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that Wyoming violated the ADEA and its 1974 extension. The district court dismissed the suit claiming that if the ADEA sought to regulate Wyoming’s employment practices, then it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment immunity found in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court, however, applying the test found in Usery, held that the ADEA is a valid exercise of Congress’ interstate commerce power, because the Act does not directly impair the State’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
		+
		+	Eric Shane Munton
		+
		+	See also [[Age Discrimination]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:11, 23 October 2019
(No difference)