Over a Legal Hill: The Supreme Court Protects Older Workers

On March 30, 2005, the US Supreme Court expanded protections for America’s older workers, ruling that age discrimination in the workplace is a crime, even if it’s not intentional.

Before the decision, workers aged 40 years and older had the difficult task of proving deliberate age discrimination in their workplaces. Now, older workers can sue employers for policies and procedures that put them at a disadvantage, albeit unintentionally. The ruling recognizes that discrimination can be subtle and that prejudice is often obscured.

The decision is likely to result in scores of age-discrimination cases, though workers may still have trouble winning them. The majority of justices ruled that employers are not at fault if their policies are based on “reasonable factors," such as cutting-costs or staying competitive.

But workers don’t need to win cases for the ruling to have a major effect. Since age-discrimination cases can no longer be dismissed easily, employers are likely to self-regulate in order to avoid costly litigation.

Age discrimination now on par with race and gender

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws policies that disproportionately harm or "disparately impact" women and people of color; these minority groups do not have to prove intentional discrimination when challenging a discriminatory policy in a court of law.

In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide if the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) offered the same protection. The Justices ruled 5-3 that ADEA does indeed allow for "disparate impact" claims that prevent discrimination against minority groups.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Steven Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all agreed that the statute allows for disparate-impact cases, while Justice Antonin Scalia said that the court did not need to consider the statute itself since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement of the law includes disparate-impact claims. "This is an absolutely classic case for deference to agency interpretation," Scalia said.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. They believe that the employer is legally responsible for intentional age-discrimination only: "an employer is liable only if its adverse action against an individual is motivated by the individual’s age."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not take part in the case because he had begun treatment for his thyroid cancer.

Will older workers be better off?

Although the ruling is generally considered a win for older workers, the Court ruled unanimously against the plaintiffs in the specific case that brought the matter forward.

In 2001, police officers sued the City of Jackson, Mississippi for giving new officers and dispatchers larger raises than workers with more than five years of experience.

The city’s lawyers claimed that ADEA prohibits intentional discrimination only, not policies that accidentally disadvantage older workers. Although the Supreme Court ruled against this claim, they decided that the City of Jackson policy was "unquestionably reasonable." The city argued that it needed to raise junior officers’ salaries in order to compete with other police departments in the region in recruiting and retaining officers.

Although the Court ruled against the plaintiffs in Smith v. City of Jackson, it effectively resolved a split among the nation’s federal judges in recent years. Appeals courts in St. Louis, San Francisco and New York have decided that ADEA allowed for disparate-impact claims, while courts in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, and New Orleans have ruled that such claims were not covered.

Within the next five years, half of American workers will be at least 40 years old, and the Supreme Court ruling recognizes the value of this aging workforce. There will be more lawsuits and threats of lawsuits for American employers. Are they worth it to give greater protection for America’s older workers?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Posted on: 4/15/2005