Why Do Older Workers Have Fewer Protections Against Age Discrimination?
Fact Sheet - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund - February 2004
The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers above age 40 from discrimination by any employer with more than 20 employees. An employer may not refuse to hire or promote, diminish the wages or benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against a worker because of his or her age.
The important protections provided by the ADEA have been whittled away by the Supreme Court in recent years. The Court has increased the burdens upon individuals to prove discrimination; taken away the rights of state employees to sue their employers; and has made it significantly easier for employers to engage in practices that, while appearing neutral, have the effect of harming older workers. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund believes that protecting the rights of older workers is an issue of profound importance to the guarantee of equal rights and justice for all Americans.
No Meaningful Remedy for Age Discrimination: Twenty years ago, in EEOC v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court made clear that state employers must comply with the ADEA. But in 2000, the Court held in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that victims of age discrimination could not recover money damages from state employees. Thus, older state employees who are victims of age discrimination have no meaningful remedy under federal law.
- Kimel upset almost 20 years of settled law and makes a mockery of the ADEA's protections from discrimination for millions of older state employees.
No Use of Disparate Impact as Proof of Age Discrimination: The ADEA has long prohibited employers from using practices that, while appearing neutral, actually disproportionately harm older workers. These practices include the use of factors that correlate with the age of an employee to make employment decisions.
- However, in Hazen Paper v. Biggins, the Supreme Court suggested that this type of proof is not sufficient to prove age discrimination, thereby opening the door for employers to utilize discriminatory factors when making employment decisions. Lower courts have interpreted Hazen Paper to impose a much higher standard of proof for age discrimination than is required for other types of discrimination.
Lawsuits brought by individuals under federal civil rights statutes are the primary, and most efficient, method of ensuring that employers comply with these laws. State laws prohibiting age discrimination are inconsistent and often inadequate to redress the harm done to older workers victimized by age discrimination. Ensuring that older workers are afforded full and effective protections against age discrimination is a critical component of ensuring civil rights for all Americans.
The Effect - One Example
Judy Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Judy Jones began driving buses and subway trains for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in 1974. In 1984, she was promoted to a supervisory position but, after that, was repeatedly denied any further promotions, despite consistently excellent evaluations from her superiors. Jones sued WMATA for age discrimination and after filing the lawsuit, WMATA fired her. The jury subsequently decided that WMATA had retaliated against Jones for complaining about age discrimination and awarded her $200,000 in damages and job reinstatement. Then, while the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court decided, in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, that state employees have no rights to sue their employers under the ADEA. WMATA successfully argued that it should be considered a "state agency" and the court agreed; Jones' case was dismissed based upon the immunity of WMATA from suit.
