Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
554 U.S. 84, 171 L. Ed. 2d 283, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5029 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), an employer claiming that its action was based on 'reasonable factors other than age' (RFOA) bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for this affirmative defense.
Facts:
- KAPL, Inc. (Knolls), a government contractor operating the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, was ordered to reduce its workforce for fiscal year 1996.
- After a voluntary buyout program, Knolls still needed to eliminate approximately 30 positions through an involuntary reduction in force.
- To select employees for layoff, Knolls directed its managers to score their subordinates on criteria including 'performance,' 'flexibility,' and 'critical skills,' with additional points for years of service.
- The total scores were used to determine which employees would be laid off.
- Of the 31 salaried employees ultimately selected for the involuntary layoff, 30 were at least 40 years old.
Procedural Posture:
- Twenty-eight laid-off employees, including Meacham, sued Knolls in federal district court, raising disparate-impact and disparate-treatment claims under the ADEA.
- A jury found for the employees on the disparate-impact claim but for Knolls on the disparate-treatment claim.
- Knolls appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the employees.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision in Smith v. City of Jackson.
- On remand, the Second Circuit reversed its previous decision and ruled in favor of Knolls, holding that the employees bore the burden of persuasion to show the employer's reason was unreasonable, and had failed to meet it.
- The employees sought and were granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue of which party bears the burden of persuasion for the RFOA defense.
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 defending against a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bear the burden of persuasion for the 'reasonable factors other than age' (RFOA) defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes. An employer defending against a disparate-impact claim under the ADEA bears the burden of persuasion for the 'reasonable factors other than age' (RFOA) defense. The ADEA's text and structure place the RFOA provision within a section listing exemptions for conduct 'otherwise prohibited,' which signals it is an affirmative defense. This interpretation aligns with the long-standing legal convention that a party claiming the benefit of a statutory exception must prove it. The RFOA clause is analogous to the nearby Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) clause and a similar provision in the Equal Pay Act, both of which are treated as affirmative defenses for which the employer bears the burden of persuasion. The Court's prior decision in Smith v. City of Jackson established that the RFOA provision is the primary defense to a disparate-impact claim, but it did not alter this traditional allocation of the burden of proof.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The employer bears the burden of persuasion for the RFOA defense. However, this conclusion should be reached not through the Court's independent statutory interpretation, but by deferring to the reasonable position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC, the agency charged with administering the ADEA, has consistently interpreted the RFOA provision as an affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof. Since the agency's interpretation is reasonable, the Court should defer to it.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Thomas
Yes, the RFOA exception is an affirmative defense, but only in disparate-treatment cases. While the RFOA provision is properly read as an affirmative defense, disparate-impact claims are not cognizable under the ADEA in the first place. Therefore, although the Court of Appeals erred in its burden-of-proof analysis, its judgment in favor of the employer should be affirmed because the employees' disparate-impact claim is legally invalid.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the burden-of-proof framework in ADEA disparate-impact cases, strengthening the position of plaintiff employees. By placing the full burden of persuasion for the RFOA defense on the employer, the Court rejected a lower standard where employers would only need to produce evidence of a non-age factor. This holding makes it more difficult for employers to prevail on summary judgment and increases the likelihood that cases involving subjective or complex employment criteria will reach a jury. Consequently, employers are incentivized to more carefully design and document their employment practices to ensure they can affirmatively prove the reasonableness of any criteria that disproportionately affect older workers.
Unlock the full brief for Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory