National Litigation Hotline

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the structure, purpose and history of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not prohibit an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. General Dynamics Land System v. Kline, No. 02-1080 (U.S. Feb. 24).

In 1997, General Dynamics and the United Auto Workers union entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that eliminated the company's prior obligation to provide health benefits to subsequently retired employees, except as to then-current workers at least 50 years old. As a result, General Dynamic's employees who were over 40 years old (and therefore protected by the ADEA) but younger than 50 were denied post-retirement health benefits. A group of under-40 employees filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the CBA violated the ADEA, which protects employees age 40 and over from employment discrimination. The EEOC agreed and suggested that the company informally settled the aggrieved employees' claims. The parties failed to settle, however, and the employees filed suit under the ADEA and state law. The federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, relying on Seventh Circuit Authority holding that the ADEA does not protect younger employees against older ones. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, “reasoning that [the ADEA's] prohibition of discrimination is so clear on its face that if Congress had meant to limit its coverage to protect only the older worker against the younger, it would have said so.”