Age Discrimination

Employers cannot avoid an age discrimination claim by replacing a worker with a similarly aged worker.

Church Law and Tax 1997-01-01

Employment Practices

Key point. Employers cannot necessarily avoid liability for age discrimination by replacing an employee who is at least 40 years of age with another employee at least 40 years of age.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot necessarily avoid an age discrimination claim by replacing one protected worker with another. A long—term employee of a business corporation was dismissed at the age of 56, and replaced by a worker who was 40 years old. He sued his employer, claiming that it had committed unlawful age discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA prohibits covered employers from discriminating in employment decision on the basis of the age of an employee who is 40 years of age or older. The employer insisted that it could not be guilty of violating ADEA if it replaced a worker at least 40 years of age with another worker who also was 40 years of age or older-since both employees are in the protected group of workers under the Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument:

The discrimination prohibited by the ADEA is discrimination “because of [an] individual’s age,” though the prohibition is “limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” This language does not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40 or older; it bans discrimination against employees because of their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older. The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is thus irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age. Or to put the point more concretely, there can be no greater inference of age discrimination (as opposed to “40 or over” discrimination) when a 40 year—old is replaced by a 39 year—old than when a 56 year—old is replaced by a 40 year—old.

The Court cautioned that “in the age—discrimination context … an inference [of discrimination] cannot be drawn from the replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger.” However, “the fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class.” O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation, 116 S. Ct. 1307 (1996). [ Age Discrimination in Employment Act]

This content is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. "From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations." Due to the nature of the U.S. legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search the site for all content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay