Age Discrimination in the Workplace

In a law suit by an employee claiming “disparate impact,” an employer can be held liable on the basis of an employment practice that has a disproportionate and adverse effect on the prospects of a protected group.  In order for the employee to be successful, the employment practice must also lack a sufficiently strong justification.

In Smith v. City of Jackson the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) authorizes such “disparate impact” suits against employers.  The ADEA serves to protect employees who are forty years of age and older from discrimination based on their age.  The disparate impact claim had long-ago been recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s status as relates to race, gender, religion or national origin.  However, until the Smith opinion, the Court had not determined whether such “disparate impact” claims were allowed under the ADEA.

At issue in Smith was a plan by the City of Jackson, Mississippi, to attract and retain qualified employees by bringing the starting salaries of police officers up to regional averages.  The City’s plan was to provide proportionately greater raises to those officers who had less than five years of tenure, as compared to their former pay, than those with more seniority.  The officers contended that the plan violated the ADEA because while some officers over the age of forty had less than five years of service, most of the older officers had more.  They claimed that the City deliberately discriminated against them because of their age, and that they were adversely affected as a result of the manner in which the salary-increase plan was implemented. 

Ultimately the Court concluded that a disparate impact claim could be recognized under ADEA.  However, the Court also ruled that the City’s decision to grant a larger raise to lower ranking employees for the stated purpose of bringing the force’s salaries in line with regional standards was a decision based on a reasonable factor other than age.  The Court stated that while there may have been other reasonable ways for the City to attain its goal, the method used by the City was not unreasonable, and therefore not in violation of the newly recognized disparate impact claim under the ADEA.
 
The overall effect of the Supreme Court’s reading of the ADEA so as to allow disparate impact claims is not yet known.  Potentially however, the effect on the nation’s employers could be quite great.  Before the Smith opinion, an employee over the age of forty needed to prove that their company had intended to discriminate against them based on their age.  The newly recognized disparate impact standard is considerably lower, and may allow employees to more easily assert age-based discrimination claims against their employers. 

Given this newly recognized claim, both employees and employers alike should make every attempt to understand their respective rights and responsibilities.  If you would like more information concerning the implications of this decision on you or your business, please contact any of the attorneys in our office.