Simpson V. Ernst & Young Summary

301 Words2 Pages
Reflective Journal Entry 12: Topic 11 In the assigned case Simpson v. Ernst & Young, a former co-worker of EY states that he was wrongfully fired due to his age. Simpson states that EY violated the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) and sought proper compensation. EY argues that Simpson was considered a partner not an employee, therefore, having no protection under the ADEA. The courts decided in favor of Simpson, stating he was deemed an employee per the economic realities test. EY was forced to pay Simpson damages for violating the ADEA. Judge Daughtrey wrote a concurring opinion at the end of the court document. Judge Daughtrey states that statutory modifications need to occur to redefine the class of individuals who are protected
Open Document