Supreme Court eases way for age discrimination suits
But case dismissal shows proving harm may still be difficult
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory for older workers, the Supreme Court concluded Wednesday that people over 40 can sue for alleged age discrimination under a less burdensome legal standard of proof.
The justices ruled 5-3 that older workers can sue in federal court over claims of "disparate impact" -- the loss of wages or benefits enjoyed by younger employees.
The decision by the high court eases the legal threshold for middle-aged and older workers to claim in court that a company policy has a disproportional effect on them. Previously, older workers had to prove their company had "discriminatory intent," a higher legal standard.
Wednesday's ruling means that companies and employers can be held liable for age discrimination even if their policies were not meant to be discriminatory.
The ruling made clear it might still be difficult to win cases of age discrimination, even under the relaxed standard that will apply to bringing such a suit.
The court agreed that 30 police and public safety officers in Jackson, Mississippi, had the right to bring a case alleging disproportionate harm because younger officers were given proportionately higher wages.
Yet the justices dismissed the lawsuit, saying the older workers failed to prove "harmful" discrimination.
"It is clear from the record that the city's plan was based on reasonable factors other than age," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. "We hold that the city's decision to grant a larger raise to lower echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with that of surrounding police forces was a decision based on a 'reasonable factor other than age,' that responded to the city's legitimate goal of retaining police officers."
Stevens turns 85 next month and is the court's oldest member.
Briefs filed with the court show that about 75 million people -- almost half of the U.S. work force -- could be affected by the ruling.
Tuesday's ruling was an extension of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. According to an Associated Press report, Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion on the Jackson case that the 1967 law was meant to allow the same legal challenges as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 1964 law bans discrimination on the basis of gender, race and religion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed the Jackson police officers' suit should be dismissed, but said disparate impact claims should not apply in age discrimination cases.
She argued businesses seeking to cut costs would be hamstrung, because such cuts might unintentionally hurt older workers, who typically earn more pay and benefits because of seniority.
"There often is a correlation between an individual's age and her ability to perform her job," O'Connor wrote. "That is to be expected, for physical ability generally declines with age, and in some cases, so does mental capacity."
She was joined by justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was being treated for thyroid cancer when the case was heard in November and did not participate in the ruling.
The case is Smith v. City of Jackson (03-1160).
Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press contributed to this report.
