by Geoffrey K. Cummings, Esq.

The golden years may have just become a bit brighter.  In its February 2004 decision in General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline, the United States Supreme Court held that workers had no cause of action against their employers when older employees are given additional benefits and incentives. 

The 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has long been held to protect older workers, defined as those over 40, from discrimination in favor of younger ones.  At issue in this case was whether the ADEA prohibits an employer from favoring older over younger workers when both groups are covered by the Act, i.e., when members of both groups are 40 years of age or older.  The court ruled that it does not.

The suit arose when General Dynamics union members in Ohio and Pennsylvania became subject to new collective bargaining agreements.  Those contracts reduced the retirement benefits of workers who were younger, but who had reached the 40-year mark and who were thus entitled to the protections of the ADEA.  A group of those younger workers sued.  They argued that the ADEA protected all workers over 40 from all age-based decisions, not just older workers from decisions that would favor younger ones.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument.  It reasoned that the statutory language which prohibits “discriminat[ion] . . . because of [an] individual’s age” might be subject to different interpretations.  It thus went beyond the plain language of the statute and closely examined its legislative history.  The Court cited numerous references that indicated that Congress intended only to prohibit discrimination against older workers in favor of younger ones.  The Court’s ruling overturned the underlying decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but was consistent with rulings in other circuits, including our own First Circuit here in the northeast.

Three Justices dissented from the majority’s ruling.  Justice Scalia saw no obvious ambiguity in the statutory language.  He would have deferred to prior EEOC regulations and interpretations, which held that the ADEA would bar the discrimination at issue.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kennedy, accused the majority of “sleight of hand”and argued that there was nothing in the wording of the statute that would allow the court to go beyond its plain and unambiguous meaning.  He drew a parallel to Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on an “individual’s race.” 

The legislative debate over Title VII focused solely on discrimination against minorities, never touching on possible discrimination against white citizens.  However, Thomas pointed out, when given the opportunity back in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that the enactment protected people of all races, including whites.  The ADEA, he reasoned, should be interpreted in the same fashion and deemed to protect those of all ages who are covered by the act.

The decision has received mixed reviews from the multitude of entities that represent the various interests of this country’s elderly.  While some laud the decision as one that will protect and help older people, others claim that the decision will ultimately hurt people in their 40s and 50s who may suffer discrimination that benefits those who are even older.  The Bush Administration unsuccessfully supported the workers.  To date, there has been no suggestion or indication as to whether amendments of the ADEA will be sought that would reverse the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling.