News
& trends
'Younger'
workers can sue under ADEA, Sixth Circuit finds
In a ruling that
challenges standard views on age discrimination, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals said workers in their 40s can pursue age discrimination
claims against their employers for providing better benefits to even
older workers.
In
a 2-1 decision, the circuit became the first in the country to interpret
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) as benefitting what
might be called the "younger old" over the "older old."
In
Cline v. General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Judge James Ryan
rejected the notion embraced by the Ohio district court—and also
the First, Second, and Seventh circuits—that such thinking amounted
to "reverse discrimination," which the ADEA does not cover. (269 F.3d
466 (6th Cir. 2002).)
"Insofar
as we are able to determine, the expression 'reverse discrimination'
has no ascertainable meaning under the law," the court said.
The
court has generated confusion by questioning the conventional wisdom
and accepted practice in age discrimination law.
Even
the AARP, the largest organization representing older Americans, has
stayed on the sidelines of the debate.
"I'm
not sure which way to go," said Tom Osborne, senior attorney for AARP
litigation. "I don't think we've ever filed something on the side
of an employer in an age discrimination case. But obviously, the idea
of setting two groups of older workers against each other is just
distasteful."
At
a time when the sagging economy is leading many companies to rethink
their benefit plans, Osborne hopes the full Sixth Circuit will clarify
its position in an en banc review, which the defense has requested.
"My
fear is that we're going to get beat over the head with this decision
by employers who want to cut back on benefits for older workers,"
he said. "There would always be the threat of a lawsuit. Employers
may just say, 'Why bother?' and decide not to provide retirement benefits
to older workers at all."
The
case began with a collective bargaining agreement between General
Dynamics (a defense contractor) and United Auto Workers. Under the
old agreement, the company provided health benefits to all retired
workers. But under the new plan, which took effect in 1997, only employees
50 and older were entitled to health benefits after they retired.
Dennis Cline and 195 other workers age 40 to 49 sued.
Most
of the confusion in the legal community has centered on the wording
of the ADEA, which aims to protect "any individual . . . who [is]
40 years of age" and, more generally, "older persons" in the workplace.
The Sixth Circuit's ruling played out "the wonderfully classic conflict
between the plain meaning of an act's statutatory language and the
thrust of its legislative history," said Louis Jacobs, an employment
law professor at Ohio State University and coauthor of Litigating
Age Discrimination Cases.
Ryan
noted that in drafting the ADEA, Congress could have limited its scope
to protect only those who are "relatively older."
"It
clearly had the power and acuity to do so," he wrote.
In
a concurring opinion, Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. overcame what he called
"serious doubts about whether Congress intended that the ADEA allow
persons ages 40 and over to recover for so-called reverse age discrimination,"
and concluded that the language of the statute supported the claim.
Dissenting,
Judge Glen Williams sided with the Seventh Circuit's 1992 decision
in Hamilton v. Caterpillar, ruling that the ADEA does not protect
"the younger against the older." (966 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1992).)
"I
believe it is obvious the older a person is, the greater his or her
needs become," Williams wrote.
Though
the split among the courts is significant, Jacobs said, the fact that
the Sixth Circuit remanded means the case will not go to the Supreme
Court any time soon. He described the ruling as typical of the evolution
of worker-protection laws. He noted that Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act, de signed to safeguard minorities, has been used to protect white
employees as well.
If
age is inappropriate for certain decisions by employers, Jacobs said,
"it would take a powerful argument for it to be appropriate for other
decisions."
—Andrew
Brownstein
|
