In a decision this week, the US Supreme Court decided to change precedent. And who said "conservative" justices don't make law, are not "activists"? This decision is one of those based on ideological lines.
The Court in a 5-4 decision said that the burden of proving age discrimination lies solely with the plaintiff. In previous cases, the plaintiff merely had to prove that age was a factor ... and then the company had to show that there were legitimate reasons for the termination. How, now, will plaintiffs be able to show that age was the primary factor? Afer all, the plaintiff was not in the room when the decision to terminate him/her was made.