Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
507 U.S. 604 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's decision motivated by a factor that is empirically correlated with age, such as pension status based on years of service, does not constitute disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A willful violation of the ADEA, triggering liquidated damages, occurs when the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute.
Facts:
- Hazen Paper Company, owned by Robert and Thomas Hazen, hired Walter F. Biggins as its technical director in 1977.
- The company's pension plan required employees to complete 10 years of service for their benefits to vest.
- In 1986, when Biggins was 62 years old, Hazen Paper fired him.
- At the time of his termination, Biggins was only a few weeks away from completing his 10th year of service, at which point his pension would have vested.
- Hazen Paper asserted that Biggins was fired for doing business with its competitors.
- Biggins claimed the company fired him because of his age and to prevent his pension from vesting.
- After firing him, the Hazens offered to retain Biggins as a consultant, a position that would not entitle him to pension benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter F. Biggins sued Hazen Paper Company and its owners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of the ADEA, ERISA, and state law.
- A jury found for Biggins and determined that the defendants had 'willfully' violated the ADEA.
- The defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The District Court granted the motion with respect to the 'willfulness' finding, eliminating the liquidated damages award, but otherwise upheld the jury's verdict on ADEA and ERISA liability.
- Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdicts for Biggins and reversed the District Court's decision on willfulness, finding that the pension interference was sufficient evidence for both ADEA liability and willfulness.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer engage in disparate treatment on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA by interfering with an older employee's pension benefits that would have vested by virtue of the employee's years of service?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. An employer does not violate the ADEA just by interfering with an older employee's pension benefits that would have vested by virtue of the employee's years of service. The ADEA prohibits disparate treatment based on an employee's age, which stems from inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes. A decision based on an employee's years of service is analytically distinct from a decision based on age, even if the two are correlated. While firing an employee to prevent pension vesting is actionable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), it does not, without more, constitute age discrimination under the ADEA because the decision is not based on age-related stereotypes but on an accurate assessment of the employee's years of service. The Court also reaffirmed that the standard for a 'willful' violation, which triggers liquidated damages, is whether the employer 'knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA,' as established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston. This standard applies to all disparate treatment cases, not just those involving a formal discriminatory policy.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
I agree with the Court's holding that an employer does not violate the ADEA by interfering with pension benefits based on years of service. I write separately to emphasize that this case only addresses a 'disparate treatment' claim, where the employee alleges intentional discrimination because of age. The Court's opinion should not be read to decide whether a 'disparate impact' theory—where a facially neutral policy disproportionately affects older workers—is a valid cause of action under the ADEA, as that question remains unanswered.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of disparate treatment claims under the ADEA. It establishes that actions based on factors merely correlated with age, such as seniority or pension status, do not by themselves constitute age discrimination. This holding forces plaintiffs to prove that the employer's motive was specifically the employee's age, not another related factor, thus raising the bar for proving ADEA violations in cases involving pension interference. The ruling channels pension-related claims to ERISA, their proper statutory home, while preserving the ADEA's focus on combating stereotypes about older workers. The Court's uniform application of the Thurston 'willfulness' standard also provides a clear and consistent framework for awarding liquidated damages in all ADEA disparate treatment cases.
Unlock the full brief for Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins