In Unanimous Decision, U.S. Supreme Court Expands Applicability of Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Prepared by Evelyn Greenstone Kammet, Esq., Department Managing Attorney
In the first opinion of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) applies to all public employers regardless of size. In Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg on November 6, 2018, the issue decided was whether the ADEA’s numerosity requirement of twenty or more employees for private employers also extends to state entities and political subdivisions. John Guido and Dennis Rankin, two of the oldest firefighters at the Mount Lemmon Fire District in Arizona filed suit against the District after they were terminated, claiming age-based discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The Fire District moved for summary judgment, arguing that it does not fit the definition of “employer” pursuant to the ADEA because it does not have twenty or more employees. The trial court agreed, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the ADEA applies to state agencies no matter how big or small they are.
Pursuant to the ADEA, the term “employer” means “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State”. In affirming the decision of the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court parsed the plain language of the ADEA, holding that the second part of the definition of “employer” provides additional categories of employers covered regardless of the number of employees. Justice Ginsberg acknowledged that interpreting the ADEA in this manner provides a broader application than the protection afforded by Title VII. The decision was joined by all members of the High Court except Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was not yet sworn in at the time oral arguments were made.
We can expect ADEA based claims against public employers to increase in the coming months given the Supreme Court’s decision and the resulting expanded protection afforded by the Act. Vernis & Bowling’s EPLI attorneys remain dedicated to defending our clients’ interests.
For more information, please feel free to contact Robert Bowling or Jeffrey Vernis.