X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that, as a matter of law, disparate impact claims cannot be brought under the ADEA. The 11th Circuit found that the statute’s language and legislative history, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s language in Hazen Paper Co v. Biggins, do not support the use of disparate impact theory for ADEA claims. Adams v Florida Power Corp. (80 EPD 40,581). Although the court noted that the 2nd, 8th and 9th Circuits have held that disparate impact claims are viable under the ADEA, the 11th Circuit, nevertheless, joined the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 10th Circuits in holding that disparate impact claims are not viable under the ADEA. The 11th Circuit cited three reasons for its decision. First, the text of the ADEA is sufficiently distinguishable from Title VII as to raise doubts about extending the disparate impact theory of liability to ADEA cases. Specifically, the ADEA, unlike Title VII, explicitly provides that an employer may “take any action otherwise prohibited … where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.” This language is similar to language in the Equal Pay Act, and the Supreme Court has determined disparate impact claims cannot be brought under the Equal Pay Act. Second, the legislative history of the ADEA differed from that of Title VII. The court explained that the ADEA was enacted following a Department of Labor report that recommended that Congress bar disparate treatment, but address disparate impact issues in alternative ways. Third, although the Supreme Court did not squarely decide the issue in Hazen Paper Co., language in that opinion suggests that disparate impact claims cannot be brought under the ADEA. The Court noted that disparate treatment captured “the essence of what Congress sought to prohibit in the ADEA.” Moreover, it stated that, in making employment decisions, the use of factors correlated with age was acceptable so long as those factors did not rely on “inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.