U.S. Supreme Court Closes the Door on Reverse Age Discrimination Claims
February 25, 2004
Summary
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court announced that
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not prohibit
discrimination against a younger worker in favor of an older worker. (General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, February 24, 2004.)
Details
General Dynamics Land Systems and a union agreed in a collective bargaining agreement to deny post-retirement health benefits to employees under 50 at the time the agreement was reached. Employees who were between ages 40 and 50 at the time of the renegotiated agreement sued for age discrimination. They claimed the new provision discriminated against them on the basis of age, because employees over 50 would receive the post-retirement health benefits and the employees aged 40-50 would not.
Although the ADEA protects employees over the age of 40 from age discrimination, the Court found nothing in the legislative history of the Act to suggest that Congress intended to protect workers over 40 from discrimination that benefited older workers. The Court noted that if Congress intended age, like sex or race, to be a generally protected classification it would have protected people under 40 because age discrimination against the young is widespread.
The employees argued that the word “age” in the ADEA provision prohibiting discrimination meant “any age discrimination” not just “older age” discrimination. The Court rejected this argument, and found that age meant “old age” in the context of the ADEA. The Court stated that the plain meaning of the ADEA, and the clear intent of Congress, was to redress discrimination against older workers based on stereotypes that older workers were not as capable of working, and not simply to protect all employees over 40 from any discrimination on the basis of age.
What This Means
This decision clarifies federal age discrimination law in that it forecloses reverse discrimination claims.
The case is also helpful guidance for cases arising under California law. Like the ADEA, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, and specifically applies this protection to employees who are at least 40 years old. Further, both Congress and the California legislature specifically state that the purpose for their respective age discrimination statutes is to protect older workers from the obstacles associated with being older than other workers. (29 U.S.C. § 621; Gov. Code § 12941.) When California law mirrors federal law, California courts will look to federal decisions for guidance. Therefore, it is likely that the General Dynamics decision will be followed by California courts addressing similar reverse age discrimination claims under California law.
If you have any questions about this or any other topic, please contact Fred Plevin or Melissa Listug Klick at (619) 237-5200 at Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton.
CLICK
HERE to UNSUBSCRIBE to this E-Update
CLICK
HERE if this was forwarded to you and you would like
to be added to the list CLICK
HERE to find out about our employer training programs
CLICK
HERE to access back issues of our E-Updates
Close Window |
