Kathy D. Jones v. National American University
Kathy D. Jones v. National American University
09-3007 (2010)
Actions
Kathy sue the National American University on charges of violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Facts
Jones has worked in the NAU in 1998. In 2004, she was appointed on an acting capacity at age 56 as the admissions director. This position was later to be offered on full appointment to Beck, a 34 year old lady.
Jones sued NAU and was put to strict proof thereof. She proved that she had been the best qualified for the job but was denied due to her age. This amounted to discrimination.
Trail Court
The District Court of South Dakota ruled in favour of Jones. Holding that she had been discriminated contrary to the Age Discrimination Act. She was awarded damages with legal costs.
Issues
Jones argued that she had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act. NAU argued that Jones had not been promoted due to her lack of managerial and marketing experience.
NAU in addition argued that the lower court has erred in its evidentiary proceeding by allowing the evidence adduced by Jones to prove discrimination and that the evidence so adduced was insufficient. NAU, therefore, challenged the ruling of jury in the lower court.
Whether the lower court erred in its evidentiary proceedings. Whether the $ 35130 damage awarded with legal costs was satisfactory given the application for a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Holding
The judges concluded that the lower Court did not commit a misapplication of the law. That the evidence adduced by the respondent at the lower court met the threshold of sufficiency and that NAU actions did lead to discrimination. The Circuit Court affirmed the ruling.
Reason and Rule
That the lower Court did not misapply the law and that the substantive action amounted to a violation of the Age Discrimination Act and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the damages.
Reference
Jones v. National American University , 09-3007 (United States Court of Appeal For the Eighth Circuit May 12, 2010).