EEOC issues proposed regulations on employer defenses to disparate impact age discrimination

Lexology
Ballard Spahr LLP
Brian D. Pedrow USA February 22 2010

On February 18, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the issue of employer defenses to disparate impact age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
The EEOC issued the revised rules in response to two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Smith v. City of Jackson (2005) and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab (2008). Both cases involved the question of when an employer is liable for age discrimination when a facially neutral policy or practice has a disparate impact on age-protected employees.
In Smith, the Supreme Court held that an employer can defend a policy that disproportionately affects older workers by showing that the policy is supported by "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA). According to the EEOC, this standard is lower than Title VII's business necessity test.
Meacham involved a reduction in force in which supervisors ranked employees based on performance, flexibility, and criticality of skill sets. More senior employees received additional points for years of service. The lowest-ranked employees were laid off. Of the 31 employees selected for layoff, 30 were over the age of 40, even though only 58 percent of the employer's workforce was over 40. The older employees claimed that the facially neutral selection process had a disparate impact on them. The Court held that the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that its selection system was based on reasonable factors other than age.
In light of these decisions, the EEOC decided to amend the ADEA regulations to address the RFOA defense. The proposed regulations define the phrase "reasonable factor" as one that is "objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a reasonable employer." The factor must be reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the facts and circumstances. Reasonableness, according to the EEOC, will be judged from the perspective of a "prudent employer mindful of its responsibilities under the ADEA." A prudent employer knows or should know that ADEA prohibits facially neutral employment policies or practices that disproportionately impact older workers.
Under the proposed rules, the EEOC will examine the following nonexhaustive list of factors to determine if a policy or practice is reasonable: (i) whether it is a common business practice; (ii) the extent to which the factor is related to the employer's stated business goals; (iii) the extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately; (iv) the extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers; (v) the severity of harm to the individuals in the protected age group and whether the employer took preventive or corrective steps; and (vi) whether other options were available to the employer.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=78164111-2172-4134-9554-41ac162311a4&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-03-08&utm_term=