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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more