Supreme Court says employers can give older workers preferential treatment
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:08 AM PST
By Newsday
Printable version
E-mail this articleIn a ruling that could have broad implications for the American workforce, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that employers can give preferential treatment to older workers.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said that the 1967 federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act intended to protect older workers from preferential treatment given to younger employees, but that the law does not apply in reverse.
Lawyers who specialize in employment discrimination and civil rights, and attorneys for the AARP, the nation's largest seniors advocacy group, said the decision was a victory.
The ruling blocks a lawsuit filed by about 200 younger workers at General Dynamics Corp., a Virginia-based defense contractor. The workers said they were discriminated against because they were too young to receive health benefits offered older colleagues.
The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court that ruled General Dynamics could be sued under the 1967 law.
Writing for the majority, Justice David H. Souter said that the law clearly "forbids discriminatory preference of the young over the old. The question in this case is whether it also prohibits favoring the old over the young. We hold it does not."
The case had been closely watched because some 70 million U.S. workers, about half the nation's workforce, are 40 or older.
"The court was clarifying what the law is," said Robert D. Lipman, an employment lawyer with Lipman & Plesur in Jericho, N.Y. "There has been a lot of confusion about whether employers can grant preferential treatment to older workers."
Lipman agreed the decision could have broad implications for the workforce. He said there have been "hundreds of lawsuits in the past several years" about whether companies can grant older employees preferential treatment. "The Supreme Court is finally saying, yes you can," Lipman said.
But Lipman warned that the ruling has negative implications as well.
"Many employers may want to discriminate and get a younger and cheaper workforce," Lipman said. "Here the Supreme Court is giving them a roadmap to do it where they (companies) can throw money at the older workers to encourage them to quit and make room for the younger workers. Employers need to make sure they don't coerce older workers to accept these carrots to leave."
Laurie McCann, an attorney for the AARP, welcomed the decision. "There's a youth culture in this country where younger is better," McCann said. "When you have younger and older workers, 99 times out of 100 it's the older worker who is at a disadvantage. The court recognizes that age discrimination continues to be a very serious problem in this country."
Also Tuesday, the Supreme Court:
--Ruled 6-3 against a Virginia coal miner who sought $1,000 in damages on privacy grounds after the government disclosed his Social Security number and other personal information.
--Ruled 5-4 that a federal agent can be sued for violating the constitutional rights of a couple during a search of their Montana ranch, refusing to shield officers from personal liability when they make mistakes on search warrants.
--Heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by a Pennsylvania man convicted of murder who says his death sentence should be overturned because of confusing jury instructions.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories