U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Age Discrimination Employment Act

EEOC Charge Filing Requirements under the ADEA
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
No. 06-1322
Supreme Court of the United States

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse a Second Circuit decision that erroneously concluded that an "intake questionnaire" submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may suffice as a charge of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In its brief, NCLC explained that in the absence of filing a formal charge, the EEOC will not notify the employer of an employee's allegations. This process undermines the EEOC's role as mediator and conciliator as intended by Congress, and robs the employer of the chance to settle claims with its employees prior to initiating costly and time consuming litigation.

Amicus brief filed 5/3/07. Certiorari granted 6/4/07. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/9/07. Oral argument held 11/6/07.

Admission of Non Party Evidence in Age Discrimination Case
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn
No. 06-1221
Supreme Court of the United States

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse a Tenth Circuit decision and to hold that the testimony of non-party employees who alleged age discrimination is inadmissible in disparate treatment cases. Pointing out the distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact cases, NCLC argued claims of discrimination by employees other than the plaintiff are always irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial in disparate treatment cases. If upheld, the Tenth Circuit's overbroad rule dramatically expands the scope of liability, and the costs and potential unfairness of employment discrimination litigation.

ADEA Disparate Impact Claims for Rehired Employees
EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Co.
No. 07-1559
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

The Supreme Court declined to review the Seventh Circuit's decision allowing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to pursue an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action on behalf of lawyers who failed to file timely charges of discrimination with the EEOC. The Seventh Circuit ruled the EEOC was able to seek individual relief for the class of individuals, despite the fact the group of lawyers would be barred from seeking back-pay, reinstatement, or other monetary damages on their own behalf. In its brief, NCLC argued that allowing the EEOC to pursue rights on behalf of individuals who have waived those rights undermines the ability of companies to amicably resolve employment matters through well-established settlement policies, and that companies will have little incentive in settling employee disputes if they believe they still could be subject to the threat of additional litigation about the very same conduct -- seeking the very same relief -- from the EEOC.

Amicus brief filed 7/21/06. Certiorari denied 10/2/06.

Its second time before the Second Circuit, the court reversed its prior decision affirming a judgment on a jury verdict for a group of age-protected former employees whose positions were eliminated during a reduction-in-force ("RIF"). NCLC filed an amicus brief in the original case, but the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The company then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, and the high court remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in light of its decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, which recognized the viability of the disparate impact theory under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). On remand, the Second Circuit reversed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and ruled that KAPL's defense in relying on specific non-age factors for the RIF constituted reasonableness. The court held that the RIFed employees failed to meet their burden to show that KAPL's proffered business justification for its employment decision was unreasonable.

NCLC joined McDonald's in urging the district court to certify its novel ruling in this case for interlocutory review by the 11th Circuit. The district court ruled that under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), employees receiving releases in a force reduction were entitled to demographic information about employees who they were not compared with for purposes of force reduction selections. Employers throughout the nation have uniformly limited this data to employees within the applicable "decisional unit" for force reduction selection purposes. Because the district court certified the case for review before receiving NCLC's brief, the district court declined to accept NCLC's amicus brief. NCLC will be seeking to file its amicus brief with the 11th Circuit.

Amicus brief filed 6/15/05. Case certified for interlocutory appeal on 6/17/05 prior to receipt of brief. Brief denied as moot 7/22/05. Decision 7/11/06.

NCLC urges the 10th Circuit to grant en banc review of a panel decision invalidating
releases signed during a group reduction-in-force (RIF) because the affected employees were not informed of the RIF selection criteria and because the employer inaccurately described the decisional unit involved, an inaccuracy that did not affect the correctness of the actual OWBPA-required disclosures of the job titles and ages of the employees retained and those RIF'd.

Impact of the ADEA on Retiree Health Care Benefits
AARP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
No. 05-4594
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit agreed with NCLC ruling that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation allowing companies to provide different health care benefits to employees who are eligible for Medicare is exempt from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court held that the regulation proposed by the EEOC was "reasonable" and "necessary and proper in the public interest." In its brief, NCLC argued that without this exemption, employers (many of whom are already finding it difficult to afford adequate benefits for current employees and their families) would be faced with undesirable options that include reducing or eliminating retiree coverage altogether.

Accepting the arguments pressed by NCLC, the Tenth Circuit rules that an employee's refusal to cooperate with the investigator from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the ADEA, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore precluding litigation of those claims in federal court.

Impact of the ADEA on Retiree Health Care Benefits
AARP v. EEOC
No. 2:05-cv-00509-AB
U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Despite the urging of NCLC along with a host of other amici, the district court granted summary judgment to AARP and enjoined the EEOC from publishing its "Erie County" Regulations, finding the regulations constituted an interpretive rule in conflict with the ADEA and Congressional intent. The regulations, which EEOC was about to publish as a final rule, would have exempted from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) employee benefit plans providing health care benefits for retirees that are altered, reduced or eliminated when the participant is eligible for Medicare (or comparable state health care retiree benefits). The ADEA gives the EEOC the authority to issue exemptions. This exemption was issued in response to a Third Circuit decision finding that the ADEA requires an employer to offer retirees either equivalent health care benefits (factoring in Medicare benefits) or to expend the same costs for coverage, for both pre- and post- Medicare eligible retirees. A widespread concern is that the simplest way for employers to avoid the problems created by the Third Circuit's decision (including increased health insurance costs) is to simply discontinue heath care coverage provided for retirees - leaving many individuals with no care health coverage until they became eligible for Medicare.