Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
June 25, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination
The attorneys of Melville Johnson, P.C. can provide this type of representation for you.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prevents employers from discriminating on the basis of age. However, employers can adopt policies that disadvantage older workers without violating the ADEA so long as the policies are based on "reasonable factors other than age."
The United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding whether an employee bringing suit must prove reasonable factors do not exist or whether the employer being sued must prove that the reasonable factors do exist. The Supreme Court has taken up this question because, while the party who bears the burden of proof has a dramatic impact on a case, statutes seldom specify who bears that burden. The Supreme Court has previously developed a framework for making this determination in racial discrimination and sex discrimination, but not in the age discrimination context.
The case heard by the Supreme Court is Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. The plaintiffs are a group of workers at the Atomic Power Laboratory who were terminated by their employer, Lockheed martin Corporation, using guidelines developed to evaluate the employees' skills and potential for retraining. The result was that 30 of the 31 employees terminated were over the age of 40, the age at which the ADEA begins protecting employees.
The plaintiffs, whose lawyers argued the evaluation system had a disparate impact on the plant's older workers, prevailed at the trial in their case. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, holding that the plaintiffs in disparate impact age discrimination cases have the burden of proof and must prove reasonable factors other than age do not exist.
At the Supreme court, the employees' attorney, and the Bush Administration, argued that Congress' inclusion of the "reasonable factors other than age" language indicated this was a defense for employers, which they must prove. In addition, the plaintiffs' attorneys argue employers are in a better position to "explain the reasonableness of its very own business practice."
The employer's lawyer countered that policies that evidence racial discrimination or sex discrimination can rarely be justified as reasonable, but policies that have a disparate impact on age often "correlate with reasonable employment factors." Therefore, the employers believe the employees should have to prove there was no legitimate justification.
Check back shortly for an update when the Court publishes its decision in the case.
This blog is largely based on a April 24, 2008, New York Times article by Linda Greenhouse.
