Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee's protected trait had a determinative influence on the employer's decisionmaking.[2]
| Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins[1] | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 13, 1993, 1993 Decided April 20, 1993, 1993 | |
| Full case name | Hazen Paper Company, et al., Petitioners v. Walter F. Biggins |
| Citations | 507 U.S. 604 (more) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 | |
Background
editHazen Paper fired Biggins, 62, a few weeks before his service would have reached the required number of years for his pension to vest. Biggins sued Hazen Paper alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.[3]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ a b O'Connor (July 25, 2016). "Hazen Paper v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993)". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved August 26, 2020.
- ^ "Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins – Case Brief Summary (Supreme Court)". Lawpipe. Retrieved August 26, 2020.
- ^ "Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993)". Justia Law. August 19, 2020. Retrieved August 26, 2020.
External links
edit- Text of Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |