As a new session of the United States Supreme Court  convenes on October 1, the justices will once again have an employment law matter on the docket: Age bias. 

In Sprint/United Management Co. v. Ellen Mendelsohn, the plaintiff alleges she was fired in a downsizing process prejudicial to older workers.

Mendelsohn lost her job in 2002 when the company laid off 15,000 employees. She was 51 and worked for Sprint/United since 1989. To support her claim, Mendelsohn wanted to call to the stand colleagues who believed age was the cause of their dismissal.

However, the trial court didn’t allow the other employees to testify because they had a different supervisor. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, overturned the jury’s decision in favor of the employer.

Charles Craver, professor of law at George Washington University, says the Sprint case will be a difficult one for the court.

"This is a close call," he says. "Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say that this seems to be evidence of a firm practice?"

Another employment case is more procedural than substantive.

In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, Patricia Kennedy and other colleagues made an age discrimination claim against the courier. The participants filed an intake questionnaire with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and attached a sworn affidavit.

But the agency did not open a case or notify FedEx of the charge. In a subsequent federal court proceeding, the company asserted the case had no merit because an EEOC charge was never filed. A trial jury ruling in favor of FedEx was overturned by the 2nd Circuit Court in New York.

A victory for FedEx ultimately could be a setback for business, according to Craver. It might result in the EEOC handing claimants a questionnaire and charge form at the same time.

I'll report on the results as they become known.