Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Adrienne Snyder

November 16, 2009

Research Checklist Assignment

• “Age Discrimination”
• “Age Discrimination” & “Employment”
• Age Discrimination /s Employment
• Age Discrimination /s Hire*
• Age* & Employment* & Discrimination*
• ADEA /s Colorado
• Discriminate! & Age & Deny! "Employment"

2a. See attachment 2a.

2b. Bryan B. Woodruff, Unprotected Until Fourty: The limited scope of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 73 Ind. L.J. 1295 (1998).
2c. This Law Review Article talks about the age group for which the ADEA covers. The age group
is between 40 and 70 years of age, in the fact scenario that was giving the age is covered under
the ADEA because he was 51 years old.

3a. See attachment 3a.

3b. 29 U.S.C.S. § 623 (Lexis 2009)
3c. This statute states that as a non-government employer it is unlawful to to fail or refuse to hire
someone based on their age.

4a. See attachment 4a.

4b. 29 U.S.C.S. § 626 (b) (Lexis through 2009)

5a. See attachment 5a.

5b. C.R.S. § 24-34-402(Lexis through 2009)
5d. George v. Ute Water Conservancy Dist., 950 P.2d 1195 (Colo. App. 1997).

6a. See attachment 6a.

6b. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (Lexis 2009)

7a. See attachment 7a.

7b. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2D 105
Adrienne Snyder
November 16, 2009
Research Checklist Assignment

8a. See attachment 8a.

8b. Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Big O Tires, 940 P.2d 397 (Colo.1997)

9a. See attachment 9a.

9b. 3 Colo. Code Regs. § 708-1 (2009)
Rule 40.2(A)
9c. This rule gives the definition of “age” under an agge discrimination case.
9d. A person has to be between to age of at least 40 and under 70 to have a valid age discrimination

10a. See attachment 10a.

10b. Danville v Regional Lab Corporation, 292 F.3d 1246 (U.S. App.2002)

11a. See attachment 11a.

11b. Torrech-Hernandez v. General Electric Company, 519 F.3d 41 (U.S. App. 2008)

12a. See attachment 12a.

12b. Vesprini v. Shaw Industries, Inc. 221 F.Supp. 2D 44 (2002)
12d. This is still good law because there has been no negative history associated with this case.