Craft & Sheppard's Supreme Court Review

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

 In Gomez-Perez v. Potter, the Court ruled that a federal employee who faces retaliation due to filing an age discrimination complaint may assert a claim under the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a). In Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United Management Co., the Court heard a critical evidentiary question in ADEA cases, but announced no bright-line rule.  When a plaintiff tries to establish corporate-wide discrimination under § 621, similarly situated employees’ testimony – those who testify about age discrimination but whose supervisors differ from those of the plaintiff – is not necessarily admissible or inadmissible.  Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 require the trial court to balance the proffered testimony’s probative value against its prejudicial effect.  Next, in Ky. Ret. Sys. v. EEOC,  the Court found that Kentucky’s pension-disability plan did not discriminate against older workers because of age and did not offend the ADEA.  Age and pension are distinct concepts.  To prove an age-related disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) claim, age must actually motivate the employer's decision. Here, the plan’s requirements for eligibility and retirement were similar, but did not result inevitably in older workers receiving lower benefits and were not motivated by age-related stereotypical assumptions about older workers. Separately, the Court (1) defined what constitutes a “charge” to the EEOC in Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki; and (2) noted although employees must identify the practice that constitutes a disparate impact, held that employers carry the burdens of production and persuasion for establishing the affirmative defense, “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) in Knolls Atomic Power Lab.