Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 2 P15 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 128 BRIGHT LINE RULE BRIGHT LINE RULE A judicial rule that helps resolve ambiguous issues by setting a basic standard that clarifies the ambiguity and establishes a simple response. The bright line rule exists to bring clarity to a law or regulation that could be read in two or more ways. Often a bright line is established when the need for a simple decision outweighs the need to weigh both sides of a particular issue. In the case of Knight v. Avon Products 2003 SJC 08876 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established a bright line rule for age discrimination. The plaintiff who was over 40 years of age was terminated from her position and claimed that her termination was the result of discrimination based on her age. The person who was hired to replace the plaintiff however was only 28 months younger. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs age played no role in the termination decision adding that 28 months is an insignificant difference. A trial court disagreed but the high court agreed with the defendant. The court then went on to establish a bright line figure of five years or more for a valid age discrimination suit to be launched. The court arrived at this figure because it realized that to do otherwise could leave employers open to lawsuits if they replaced a worker with someone who was only two years younger. To avoid endless argument the five-year figure was established. If there was a pattern of discriminatory behavior toward an employee it might be possible to see a two- or three-year difference as enough to tip the balance against that employee. In the general course of employment issues however the court felt that this particular bright line would set a useful guideline for both employees and employers. In Ohio v. Robinette 519 . 33 117 . 417 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 1996 the . Supreme Court reversed a bright line rule established by the Ohio State Supreme Court. Robinette was stopped by a deputy sheriff for speeding. He complied with the .
