Question

Marv files a suit against the state of New Hampshire, alleging employment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state asks the court to dismiss the suit. The court is most likely to rule that a. the plaintiff is immune from any defense. b. the state is immune from the suit. c. the court is immune from the request. d. the suit can proceed.

Answer 1

Answer:

The correct option is "D," which is "the suit can proceed."

Marv files a suit against the state of New Hampshire, alleging employment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state asks the court to dismiss the suit. The court is most likely to rule that "the suit can proceed."

Explanation:

New Hampshire Age Discrimination

The New Hampshire Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age (NH Rev. Stat. Sec. 354-A: 1et seq.). The Law does not specify a minimum or maximum qualifying age. All public employers and private employers with six or more employees are covered.

Under the Law, it is unlawful to:

• Refuse to hire or to discharge, or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of age, unless based on a bona-fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

• Print or circulate any statement, advertisement or publication, or use any form of application for employment that expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, unless based on a BFOQ.

• Make any inquiry or record in connection with employment that expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to age, unless based on a BFOQ.

• Discharge or otherwise retaliate against any person because he or she has filed a complaint of discrimination or had testified or assisted in any proceeding under the Law.

• Aid, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under the Law, or to attempt to do so.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a job applicant failed to establish a case of age discrimination claim because he was not qualified for the job in question (Cossette v. USDA, 297 Fed. Appx. 13 (1st Cir. 2008)). In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the job requirements listed in the employer's vacancy announcement and job description and compared them with the applicant's qualifications. The court concluded that the applicant's education and experience did not meet the requirements of the job in question.

However, in the case of Marv, the question did not avail us with the requirements of the job descriptions.