The case of Smith vs. The City of Jackson is based on age discrimination and the interpretation that companies use to circumvent the process. The City of Jackson, Mississippi contends that Mr. Smith could no longer meet the physical requirements for the job that he held. Mr. Smith argues that the standards that were used to dismiss him from his job are not relevant to his duties. Mr. Smith is supported in this argument by the Trial lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) which contend that the city of Jackson, Mississippi used facially neutral practices to dismiss Mr. Smith.
Facially neutral practices are described as stringent requirements; i.e. physical requirements, test scores, or special talents placed upon a job or task that are non age related. One might argue that many jobs require certain physical and mental attributes to perform the task, which in many cases may be true. But the legal argument here is that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has addressed this discrimination by declaring the Reasonable Factors Other than Age (RFOA). The (RFOA) recognizes that companies and institutions use discriminatory test and physical requirements to circumvent age discrimination.
In addressing (RFOA) it becomes incumbent upon the employer to prove that any test or physical conditions placed on a task are pertinent to that task. This action will not only protect the employer but the employee as well from future discrimination cases.
The case of Smith vs. The City of Jackson and other similar cases currently proceeding through the courts are rather complex in nature, and are impacted by or impact many discrimination laws. For example if (RFOA) interpretations are too liberal they could drastically affect the American disabilities Act making it far less effective. But a far more important issue is the impact that it would have on the American population, with