S. Ct. Strengthens Age Discrimination Cases

The court said the employer must provide "reasonable factors other than age" for the actions in order to successfully defend itself against an age discrimination lawsuit.

KANSAS CITY, Mo (MCT) - Four workplace cases dominated decisions published Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court, with perhaps the most notable being a ruling that makes it easier for employees to prove age discrimination.

In a 7-1 decision, the court said an employer bears the burden of explaining the reasons - other than age - for a company's action that appears to have a disparate impact on workers over age 40.

The court said the employer must provide "reasonable factors other than age" for the actions in order to successfully defend itself against an age discrimination lawsuit.

The case, Meacham et al. v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, was brought by 26 employees who sued Knolls, in upstate New York, after 31 workers were laid off. Thirty of the 31 laid-off employees were over 40.

The majority opinion, which Justice David Souter wrote, acknowledged that the ruling makes it harder for employers to defend age discrimination lawsuits, but said the ruling was the correct interpretation of the wording in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in part, writing that he did not believe disparate impact claims are recognized under that law.

In a separate age bias case, the court found that Kentucky's state retirement system does not discriminate against older workers.

In Kentucky Retirement Systems v. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC had argued that the state used age as a decision-making factor in a way that disadvantaged older workers.

The court ruled 5-4 that the system reasonably used age and work tenure when structuring benefits of disabled workers who were eligible for retirement.

An employee had complained that the structure deprived retirement-eligible employees older than 55 of disability payments, a benefit that was accorded younger workers.

The minority opinion argued that the system violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

In a third decision, the court voted 7-2 that federal labor law bars California from prohibiting the use of state money to fight union activities.

California had passed a law in 2000 that was intended to make sure that the state didn't subsidize an employer's pro- or anti-union activities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Bush administration fought the state law.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens remanded the case to the appellate court for a decision that reflects the holding that the California law erroneously stepped into a subject of federal jurisdiction.

Federal labor law allows employers to be involved in pro- or anti-union activities as long as they don't threaten reprisals against employees.

The Missouri legislature has considered legislation similar to the California law.

The dissenting justices did not think the California law was the kind of regulation prohibited by federal law.

The fourth opinion, in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, touched on an employee benefits issue.

In a 6-3 decision, the court said MetLife had wrongly emphasized a medical report that favored denying disability benefits and wrongly de-emphasized reports that favored granting benefits to Wanda Glenn, a Sears, Roebuck & Co. employee in Ohio.

Glenn had been denied long-term disability insurance benefits and sued, contending that insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims and that creates a conflict of interest.

The majority opinion, which Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, said federal law requires insurers to do full and fair reviews of claim denials. In this case, the court found that MetLife's review did not meet that standard.

The decision upheld an appellate court order that reinstated Glenn's benefits.

___

© 2008, The Kansas City Star.