Smith v. City of Jackson

Background

A group of police and public safety officers in Jackson, Mississippi, sued after a 1999 pay-plan revision gave larger percentage raises to less‑senior officers. The older officers claimed the plan had a disparate impact on employees over 40 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The lower courts split: the District Court granted summary judgment to the city and the Fifth Circuit held disparate-impact claims unavailable under the ADEA, prompting Supreme Court review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the ADEA allows a disparate-impact theory like the one the Court announced in Griggs for Title VII. The majority concluded the ADEA does permit disparate-impact claims, relying on identical statutory language, the law’s history, and agency materials. But the Court said ADEA impact claims are narrower than Title VII claims because of the ADEA’s “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) provision and pre-1991 standards. Plaintiffs must identify the specific employment practice causing the statistical disparity, and employers can defend by showing the practice was based on reasonable non‑age business factors.

Real world impact

The decision lets older workers bring disparate-impact suits under the ADEA but limits them practically: courts require plaintiffs to isolate the exact practice producing the impact, and employers can rely on reasonable non‑age justifications such as rank, seniority, or market pay surveys. Here the Court affirmed because the officers failed to identify a specific practice and the city’s pay plan rested on reasonable goals.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia would defer to the EEOC’s regulation recognizing impact claims; Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment but would have rejected disparate-impact claims on textual and historical grounds.