Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 SEPTEMBER 2012

Defending Your Reduction In Force

In Smith v. City of Jackson (544 U.S. 228 (2005)), the U.S. Supreme Court held that adverse impact claims are available under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

United StatesEmployment and HR

In Smith v. City of Jackson (544 U.S. 228 (2005)), the U.S. Supreme Court held that adverse impact claims are available under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

However, the Supreme Court also held that, when a plaintiff establishes adverse impact, the employer's defense differs from that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For years, it has been unclear exactly what this means.

Under Title VII, an employer must establish "business necessity," a difficult burden to meet. In contrast, under the ADEA, the Supreme Court said a different defense may apply: "a reasonable factor other than age." While the Supreme Court said that the reasonable factor other than age defense was a lesser burden to satisfy than business necessity, it left undefined what the employer must establish to meet the defense.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from