Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Over-50 workers can break out ADEA claims

Reprints
Over-50 workers can break out ADEA claims

A “subgroup” of workers over age 50 can pursue claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act even if other workers who are older than 40 and also fall under the act’s protection were not discriminated against, says a federal appeals court, in a ruling that breaks with other appellate courts’ opinions.

A group of employees who were terminated by Harmarville, Pennsylvania-based Pittsburgh Glassworks in a reduction in force in March 2009 filed suit against the company charging age discrimination under the ADEA, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Rudolph A. Karlo et al. v. Pittsburgh Glass Works L.L.C.

The U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh ruled that a 50-and-older disparate impact claim is not viable under the ADEA, which was overturned by a unanimous three-judge appellate court panel. 

“The question in this case is whether a disparate-impact claim is cognizable where a ‘subgroup’ of employees at the upper end of that range — in this case employees aged fifty and older — were alleged to have been disfavored relative to younger employees,” said the ruling.

“We answer in the affirmative. The plain text of the statute dictates our decision as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The ADEA prohibits disparate impacts based on age, not forty-and-older identity,” said the ruling.

“A rule that disallowed subgroups would ignore genuine statistical disparities that could otherwise be actionable through application of the plain text of the statute.” 

Among the cases cited by the panel in its ruling was a 1996 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in O’Connor v. Consolidated in which the court ruled in favor of a 56-year-old who was fired and replaced by a younger worker who was over 40.

This case “answers the question before us. A specific, facially neutral policy that significantly disfavors employees over fifty years old supports s claim of disparate impact under the plain text of (the ADEA). Although the employer’s policy might favor younger members of the forty-and-over cohort, that is an ‘utterly irrelevant factor,’” said the ruling in quoting from the O’Connor decision.

The ruling notes that its decision in the matter disagrees with rulings by the 2nd, 6thth and 8th Circuit Courts in New York, Cincinnati and St. Louis respectively. “Those decisions have primarily relied on policy considerations that we do not find persuasive,” said the ruling.

The ruling also vacated the District Court’s ruling excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ statistics expert, in part because of its ruling on the over-50 issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings. 

 

Read Next