Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido (United States Supreme Court)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido - United States Supreme Court


Facts:  In short, the Mount Lemmon Fire District's Chief resolved a budget shortfall by laying off two of the district's oldest employees, John Guido ("Guido") and Dennis Rankin ("Rankin").  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause to believe that the Mount Lemmon Fire District had discriminated against Guido and Rankin when they were chosen to be laid off.

In relevant part, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") defines "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year...The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, and any interstate agency, but such term does not include the United States."  "Person" is defined as "one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized groups of persons."

The District Court, relying upon precedent from the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Circuits held that the ADEA has a 20 employee minimum "threshold" that applies to state and local employers.  As a result, the District Court found that the ADEA did not provide a cause of action for Guido or Rankin as the Mount Lemmon Fire District had fewer than 20 employees.  On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed, with a holding that state and local government with fewer than 20 employees can be held liable for age discrimination under the ADEA.  This split in circuits created an issue for the United States Supreme Court to resolve.

Issue:  Does the ADEA apply to state and local government employers with fewer than 20 employees such that all state political subdivisions, regardless of size, can be held liable for age discrimination claims under the ADEA?

Current Status:  This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter.  As readers might have been able to garner, the case centers on the interpretation of the word "employer" as defined within the ADEA.  Counsel for the Mount Lemmon Fire District posited that because the ADEA defines "person" broadly to include "any organized group of persons", the phrase "a person engaged in any industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees" inherently includes state and local employers.  As for the "...also means..." definition, counsel for Mount Lemmon Fire District suggested this language is a transitional phrase that signifies amplification or clarification.  The Court seemed to have trouble following this line of argument, in particular the suggestion that the first part of the definition of "employer" applies to state and local entities.  In particular, Justice Sotomayor seemed to read "person" to be aimed solely at private individuals rather than state and local employers.

On the other hand, counsel for Guido and Rank argued that the definitions provided under the ADEA covers three groups of employers:  Private employers with at least 20 employees; their agents; and state and local employers of any size.  According to this argument, the term "also means...(2) a State or political subdivision..." is unambiguous language that controls the question of which state and local employers are covered by the ADEA.  Under this line of reasoning, the plain language meaning of "also means..." should control in so much that it adds something to the definition.  As many legal scholars that followed the arguments came to believe, this argument seemed to gain more traction among the Justices.

Looking Ahead:  The matter is currently before the Justices for further review and conference.  Given the tenor of oral arguments on Monday, I would not be surprised to see a close ruling in favor of the employees in this case.  If you take the plain language of the ADEA on its face, it is not a stretch to hold that the drafters of the ADEA intended for it to apply to state and local government employers with fewer than 20 employees.


For additional information:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-587.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more