Skip to main content

Updated: Supreme Court Holds That The ADEA Applies to ALL State and Local Governments, Regardless of Size


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


Facts:  To summarize, 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 discriminated against Guido and Rankin when they were chosen to be laid off.

The District Court, relying upon precedent from the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Circuits held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("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 as 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 governments with fewer than 20 employees can be held liable for age discrimination under the ADEA.

Holding:  In a rather short opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg began her delivery of the opinion of the Supreme Court with a recognition that since 1974, the ADEA has read:

  • "The term 'employer' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees...The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and 2) a State or political subdivision of a State..."
In this instance, the point of contention centered around whether "also means" added new categories to the definition of "employer" or whether it merely clarifies that State and their political subdivisions are a type of "person" included in the ADEA.  Justice Ginsburg wrote that the words "also means" should be read to add new categories of employers to the ADEA's reach.  For starters, "also means" is additive rather than clarifying.  As for Mount Lemmon's argument that the ADEA should be interpreted in line with Title VII (which applies to state and local governments only if they meet a numerosity specification), the Court was unmoved.  While acknowledging that applying the ADEA to States and political subdivisions regardless of size would create a broader reach than Title VII, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that this disparity is a result of the different language Congress chose to employ in regard to each statute.  Rather than attempting to tie the ADEA to Title VII, the Court held that it was more appropriate to compare the ADEA to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Like the FLSA, the ADEA ranks States and political subdivisions as "employer[s]" regardless of the number of employees they have.

Judgment:  The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that State and local governments are covered "employers" under the the ADEA, regardless of the number of employees these governmental entities have. 

The Takeaway:  Back in October, following oral arguments in the case, I speculated that while the employees were likely to win, I thought it would be a narrow "victory".  Well it turns out the 8 - 0 vote in favor of the employees was not quite as narrow as I thought.  (The newest Justice on the bench, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, did not take part in the decision).  With that being said, the first opinion from the Supreme Court this term ended up being a rather straight forward matter that turned on the finer points of the wording to the ADEA.  When the Court parsed the language of the statute and compared it to the scope of the FLSA, I think it is easy to see how the Court reached the conclusion that State and local governments are covered "employers" under the ADEA, regardless of size.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Justice Ginsburg

Date:  November 6, 2018

Opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-587_n7ip.pdf

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