Jump to content

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 167.7.9.163 (talk) at 13:38, 20 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202Code, 29 U.S.C. § 621 through 29 U.S.C. § 634 (ADEA), forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age in the United States (see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a)). The bill was signed into law in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Scope of Protection

The ADEA includes a broad ban against age discrimination and also specifically prohibits:

  • Discrimination in hiring, promotions, wages, or termination of employment and layoffs.
  • Statements or specifications in job notices or advertisements of age preference and limitations.
  • Denial of benefits to older employees. An employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing full benefits to younger workers.
  • Since 1986 it has prohibited mandatory retirement in most sectors, with phased elimination of mandatory retirement for tenured workers, such as college professors, in 1993.

Mandatory retirement based on age is permitted for:

  • Executives over age 65 in high policy-making positions who are entitled to a pension over a minimum yearly amount.

Creation and Amendments

Written in 1961, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602 (Dec. 15, 1967), codified as Chapter 14 of Title 29 of the United States Code, 29 U.S.C. § 621 through 29 U.S.C. § 634 (ADEA), prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older in the United States (see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a)). It also applied to standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers and requires that information about the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.

The ADEA was later amended in 1986 and again in 1991 by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (Pub. L. 101-433) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-166).

Case law

The ADEA differs from the Civil Rights Act in that the ADEA applies to employers of 20 or more employees (see 29 U.S.C. § 630(b)) rather than 15 or more employees. Both acts do, however, only apply to employers in industries affecting interstate commerce. The 20 employees can include overseas employees Morelli v. Cedel (2nd Cir. 1998) 141 F3d 39, 45.

The ADEA protects US citizens working for US employers operating abroad except where it would violate the laws of that country - ADEA 29 USC §§623(f)(1), per Mahoney v. RFE/RL, Inc (DC Cir. 1994) 47 F3d 447, 449.

An age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers).

The ADEA does not stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one, even when the younger one is over 40 years old. General Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004).

In June 2008, the United States Supreme Court decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab (Docket 06-1505) placed the burden on all employers to prove that a layoff affecting older workers is based on reasonable factors other than age, reversing a lower court that placed the burden on dismissed employees.[1] Needing to downsize, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory's voluntary buyout plan could not attain the desired staff reduction so it developed a matrix to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility and criticality of their jobs, and added points for years of service. Nevertheless, all but one of the dismissed were over the age of 40. A jury found for the employees, and the judgment was upheld on an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. KAPL then appealed higher to the U.S. Supreme Court and while its petition was pending, the related case of Smith v. City of Jackson (Docket 03-1160) caused the Court in to vacate the judgment in favor of the defendants (Meacham II). In response, the plaintiffs petitioned the US Supreme Court which ultimately ruled in their favor on technical grounds. The case was remanded to the 2nd Circuit Court where the original judgment was finally reinstated in 2009 (Meacham III).[2][3]

The 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Gomez-Perez v. Potter allowed federal workers who experience retaliation as a result of reporting age discrimination under the law to sue for damages.

In Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that state employees cannot sue states for monetary damages under the ADEA. The EEOC may still enforce the ADEA against states, and state employees may still sue state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief.[4]

Remedies

ADEA remedies include reinstatement and back pay for employee or damages if reinstatement is not feasible and/or employer's violation is intentional.

Defenses

Section 623 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act discusses the defenses to ADEA claims as follows:

References

  1. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (June 20, 2008). "A Supreme Court Victory for Older Workers". New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2012.
  2. ^ "Case 1:97-cv-00012-DRH Document 312" (PDF). United States Printing Office. 05/01/09. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Case 1:97-cv-00012-DRH Document 316" (PDF). United States Printing Office. 05/11/09. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Feder, Jody. "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): A Legal Overview" (PDF). Congressional Research Service, June 23, 2010, p. 2. Retrieved 3 November 2011.