By Martin J. Katz. 114 Penn St. L. Rev. 857
The Supreme Court has done a turn-about on the value of uniformity in employment discrimination law. For many years, the Court embraced the idea that different employment discrimination statutes that use identical language should be understood to impose identical requirements. So, for example, a plaintiff claiming age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would face the same requirements as a plaintiff claiming race or sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). More recently, the Court has moved away from this ideal of uniformity. And last summer, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, the Court completely rejected that ideal. [keep reading]