Kayte Clark ( ) - Case Study Example

To successfully bring a case of discrimination against her employer under ADEA, there are certain things that Kayte Clarke must prove. In the case of Palasota v Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2003), the Court outlined what the plaintiff must prove to show that indeed there was discrimination that is actionable under ADEA. Citing the earlier case of Bodenheimer v PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1993), the Court enumerated the following: the plaintiff was discharged; he was qualified for the position; he belongs to the protected class at the time of the termination; the employer did any of the following to him (a) replaced him with another who is not within the protected class, or (b) replaced him with a younger person, or (c) simply discharged on account of his age.

Applying the aforesaid in Kayte’s case, she must provide proof that she is 40 years old or above at the time of her termination and therefore within the protected class under s. 631(a) of the 29 USC Chapter 14 (or ADEA), proof of her termination and her qualifications to the position and the fact that she was discharged on account of her age. Moreover, ADEA requires that the employer must have at least 20 employees to bring the case within its ambit under s. 630(b). An act of employment discrimination may be proved either directly or indirectly.

Indirect proof is conducted using the “pretext” method prescribed in the case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792 (1973). In that case, which involves discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Court held that prima facie evidence from which it can be inferred that there was discrimination may be offered in lieu of direct proof. The employer is then given an opportunity to rebut it with contrary evidence, to which the plaintiff must counter-prove as a mere “pretext,” because the real reason was actually discrimination-based.

On the other hand, if Kayte is to bring a suit under the ADA, she must prove the threshold requirements of the law, which are: she has a disability within the ADA context; she is a qualified individual under ADA, and; she has suffered an adverse employment action because of such disability (Huber 267). Section 12102(1) of Title 42 of the USC (known as ADA) defines disability as: physical or mental impairment significant enough to interfere with major life activities; is recorded, and; seen or regarded by others as such.

Legal blindness is defined by the American Medical Association as an eye condition in which a person can see details only at a distance of 20 feet or less using the best conventional correction as opposed to the normal 200 feet vision reach of persons with 20/20 vision or can detect objects only at a field of 20° degrees or less (Corn & Koenig 6). In the case of Sutton v United Airlines 527 US 471 (1999), the Court ruled that a person who is legally blind, but whose vision impairment is correctable, is not disabled under the ADA.

Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, the mitigating factor established in Sutton and similar cases was specifically rejected under s. b(2) thereof, but not the use of eyeglasses or contacts that “correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error” which is now incorporated as s 12102(4)(E)(ii) and (iii)(I) of ADA. The implication of this is that Kayte may not qualify if her vision impairment is correctable by eyeglasses or contacts, but may qualify if instead of eyeglasses and contacts, the impairment is cor