Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

2008-06-19

Headline: Workers laid off in an age-skewed reduction get a win: the Court required employers to prove layoffs rested on reasonable non-age factors, shifting the burden to employers to justify age-linked impacts.

Holding: An employer defending an ADEA disparate-impact claim must both produce evidence and persuade the factfinder that its actions were based on reasonable factors other than age, because the RFOA provision is an affirmative defense.

Real World Impact:

Requires employers to prove non-age reasons for policies that hurt older workers.
Makes it harder for employers to rely on vague subjective layoff systems.
Leaves plaintiffs responsible for identifying specific practices causing age disparities.

Topics: age discrimination, workplace layoffs, employer defenses, employment statistics

Summary

Background

A private contractor that runs a Navy nuclear lab (Knolls) cut jobs after the Cold War and used manager scores for “performance,” “flexibility,” and “critical skills,” plus years of service, to pick who to lay off. Of 31 salaried workers let go, 30 were at least 40, and a group of those workers sued under the federal age-discrimination law (ADEA), arguing the layoff process had an unlawful disparate impact on older workers. A jury sided with the workers, and the case went through appeals before reaching the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether an employer defending a disparate-impact suit must only raise a defense or must also persuade the judge or jury that its non-age reasons were reasonable. Reading the ADEA text, the Court concluded the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) clause is an affirmative defense like the bona fide occupational qualification defense, and so the employer bears both the burden to present evidence and the burden to persuade the factfinder that the factor was reasonable. The Court rejected importing a separate “business necessity” test and confirmed that plaintiffs must identify the specific workplace practice that caused the age-skewed result.

Real world impact

The ruling means employers who use scoring systems or other practices that disproportionately affect older workers must prove those practices were reasonable, not just point to them. Older workers still must show which specific practice caused the disparity. The Court vacated the appeals court judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings under this allocation of proof.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia agreed with the judgment and emphasized deference to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s approach. Justice Thomas disagreed about whether disparate-impact claims are even allowed under the ADEA and joined only parts of the opinion. Justice Breyer did not participate.