Smith v. Jackson, Mississippi
The city of Jackson, Mississippi adopted a revised pay plan granting raises to all city employees in the Police and Fire Departments. Under the revised plan, officers and dispatchers with fewer than five years tenure received proportionately greater raises than employees who had more than five years tenure. Thirty police officers and public safety dispatchers over the age of 40 filed suit pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Plaintiffs made two claims: (1) disparate treatment, i.e., the pay plan was intentionally discriminatory; and (2) disparate impact, i.e., the pay plan was unintentionally discriminatory. The trial court ruled for city on both claims. The Supreme Court has held that disparate impact claims may be brought under Title VII, has not yet determined whether disparate impact claims can be brought under the ADEA. Three circuit courts of appeal currently allow disparate effects claims under the ADEA, while five circuits do not. In this case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals compared the text of the ADEA to Title VII, noting that ยง 623(f)(1) of the ADEA allows employers to escape liability if the adverse employment action is “based on reasonable factors other than age.” The court found that this provision is a “clear textual difference” between the ADEA and Title VII. When considered with the whole text of the ADEA and the legislative intent, the Fifth Circuit determined that the ADEA was not intended to cover disparate effects claims and affirmed the trial court.
Question Presented:
Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the five-to-three circuit conflict over whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act?
