Suit filers need not prove intent

Ruling allows older workers to sue without proving employers discriminated intentionally.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
WASHINGTON -- To sue under a federal age discrimination law, older workers do not necessarily have to prove an employer intentionally favored younger employees.
In a ruling expanding the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday that workplace policies that disadvantage older workers -- even if not directly caused by age bias -- can be a form of illegal age discrimination.
Despite that decision, the justices ruled against a group of 30 members of the Jackson, Miss., police force who had filed an age discrimination suit based on a city pay plan that granted more lucrative benefits to younger workers than older ones.
The high court said that while so-called "disparate impact" claims are permitted under the ADEA, the Jackson police officers had not demonstrated enough of a claim to survive dismissal.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia provided the key fifth vote on the disparate-impact issue but said he reached the same result by deferring to a government agency's interpretation that the ADEA permits disparate-impact claims.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented on the disparate-impact issue, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not participate.
The 1967 ADEA protects all workers 40 and older. Roughly half of America's civilian workforce is over 40, and the proportion of older workers is growing. Wednesday's ruling in Smith vs. City of Jackson puts employers on notice that it may not be enough to avoid policies and practices that use age as a proxy in employment decisions.
Other consequences
In addition to outlawing discriminatory treatment, the ADEA also bars certain actions that result in a discriminatory impact on protected individuals aged 40 and older, the majority justices said. But the majority was careful to limit the potential scope of that holding, saying that a plaintiff must show more than mere disparate impact to prevail.
The ruling comes as a result of a 2001 lawsuit challenging an effort by the city of Jackson to bring its salaries up to regional standards. In carrying out the salary plan, officers and police dispatchers with five or fewer years of tenure received proportionately greater raises than employees with more than five years' experience.
Most of those with five or more years' of experience were over 40 years of age and thus covered by the age discrimination law. They sued under the ADEA, claiming that giving younger workers disproportionately higher raises than older workers is a form of age discrimination.
Lawyers for the city countered that the ADEA prohibits only acts of intentional age discrimination -- not every instance where policies may disadvantage members of the protected class. The majority justices disagreed but ruled in favor of the city. The court said the older employees had not done enough to prove their case and that the city's salary plan was based on reasonable factors other than age.