HIGH COURT LOWERS THRESHOLD FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION
Written by Fred Barbash, The Washington Post; www.washingtonpost.com
In a long-awaited age discrimination ruling, the Supreme Court today said that older workers need not prove intentional discrimination in order to prevail in cases brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
An otherwise neutral workplace policy that has a "disparate impact" on senior workers may also constitute illegal discrimination covered by the law, the court said.
The decision extends to age discrimination plaintiffs the same legal weapons available to race discrimination plaintiffs in employment cases, but with one important exception. In age bias cases a workplace policy that disfavors older workers may be legal if "based on reasonable factors other than age," such as competitive pressures from the marketplace. In race cases, such a defense is not permissible.
The justices illustrated the difference in their holding today. While ruling with the plaintiffs, a group of police and public safety officers, on the legal issue, the justices said they had, nevertheless, failed to make their case because their employer, the city of Jackson, Miss., had an "unquestionably reasonable" explanation for the policy at issue.
The decision was a significant civil rights victory for the plaintiffs and resolved a conflict among the nation's appeals courts. "It's very difficult to prove purposeful age discrimination," said Thomas C. Goldstein, who argued today's case . "Employers never say any more, well, 'we just have to get rid of older workers.' "
Goldstein noted that it was the court's second pro-civil rights ruling in two days, suggesting that the current court is not as hostile to civil rights claims as some have said. (The court yesterday extended the reach of the law barring gender discrimination in education.)
The court's opinion today was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Its main holding was endorsed by five justices. Three justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the core holding. Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age."
Although the act was adopted by Congress in 1967, the Supreme Court has never decided whether it authorizes cases involving unintentional discrimination, known as "disparate impact" suits. Meanwhile, federal appeals courts have issued contradictory rulings on the issue.
The Supreme Court tried to settle the matter in 2001, when it agreed to hear a case brought by older workers at a Florida utility who said they were disproportionately laid off during corporate downsizing. But the court dismissed the case without a ruling in 2002.
In this case, the police and public safety officers who are older than 40 say they were treated unfairly under a new pay scale, which had the effect of offering them smaller wage increases than employees younger than 40.
In 2002, a federal judge ruled against the officers, saying the ADEA gave them no right to sue in cases of unintentional discrimination, and last year the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed.
The police officers argued that the age-discrimination law should be read to permit disparate-impact claims because the Supreme Court has adopted such an interpretation of laws against employment discrimination by race.
The city of Jackson argued that Congress did not intend the ADEA to be applied so broadly.
While siding with the officers on the law itself, the court said they had not made their case on the facts.
"The disparate impact was attributable to the City's decision to give raises based on seniority and position," Stevens said, in order to make junior officers' salaries competitive with comparable positions on the market. "Reliance on these factors is unquestionably reasonable," Stevens said.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005