544 U.S. 228 (2005) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Smith v. City of Jackson is a landmark employment discrimination case in which the U.S.
Does the ADEA permit disparate-impact claims, and if so, did the plaintiffs establish a prima facie disparate-impact case that is not defeated by the ADEA's "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) defense?
The ADEA's prohibition on discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of age, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2), authorizes disparate-impact claims, consistent with the similar language in Title VII as interpreted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. However, ADEA disparate-impact liability is narrower than under Title VII because the ADEA expressly provides a defense where the challenged practice is based on reasonable factors other than age (RFOA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). Plaintiffs must identify a specific employment practice causing the statistical disparity, and the employer avoids liability if it shows the practice was based on reasonable non-age factors. The 1991 Civil Rights Act's amendments that modified disparate-impact law under Title VII do not apply to the ADEA, leaving in place the Wards Cove requirements (including the need to identify a specific practice) in the ADEA context.
Yes. The ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs failed to identify a specific employment practice causing the alleged disparity, and, in any event, the City's pay plan was based on reasonable factors other than age; summary judgment for the City was affirmed.
Smith definitively recognizes disparate-impact liability under the ADEA, aligning it with Title VII's structure but preserving important differences. It clarifies that ADEA disparate-impact claims are narrower because of the statute's RFOA defense and because the 1991 Civil Rights Act's disparate-impact amendments to Title VII do not apply to the ADEA. Practically, the decision raises the bar for plaintiffs: they must identify a discrete policy or practice causing a statistical disparity and overcome an employer's showing that the policy was reasonably based on non-age considerations such as cost, market competitiveness, or experience. For law students, Smith is essential to understanding how textual differences between statutes and legislative amendments shape the contours of discrimination law.