Document: 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008) Clifford B. MEACHAM et al., Petitioners, v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, aka KAPL, Inc., al. No. 06-1505. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 23, 2008. Decided June 19, *2397 John DuCharme, Joseph C. Berger, Harp & Clark, L.L.P., Clifton Park, NY, Kevin K. Russell, Counsel Record, Amy Howe, Howe P.C., Bethesda, MD, Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, for Petitioners. Margaret A. Clemens, E. Higgins, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, N.Y., Seth P. Waxman, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Heather M. Zachary, Anthony Deardurff, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Washington, D.C., Janet R. Carter, Daniel Richenthal, New York, Respondents. *2398 Justice SOUTER delivered the opinion Court. A provision Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 seq., creates an exemption employer actions "otherwise prohibited" by ADEA but "based on reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA). 623(f)(1). The question is whether facing a disparate-impact claim planning to defend basis RFOA must not only produce evidence raising defense, also persuade factfinder its merit. We hold that do both. I National Government pays private companies some work maintaining Nation's fleet nuclear-powered warships. One such contractor respondent Inc. (Knolls), operator Government's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, which has history dating back first submarines 1940s 1950s. States Navy Department Energy jointly fund Knolls's operations, decide what projects it should pursue, set annual staffing limits. In recent years, been charged with designing prototype naval nuclear reactors training personnel run them. demands changed end Cold War, fiscal year 1996 was ordered reduce force. Even after hundred or so employees chose take company's ensuing buyout offer, left thirty-some jobs cut.[1] Petitioners (Meacham, short) are among those laid off resulting "involuntary reduction force." order select layoff, told managers score their subordinates three scales, "performance," "flexibility," "critical skills."[2] scores were summed, along points years service, totals determined who be let go. Of 31 salaried off, 30 at least 40 old.[3] Twenty-eight them sued, both disparate-treatment (discriminatory intent) result) claims under state law, alleging "designed implemented workforce process eliminate older that, regardless intent, had discriminatory *2399 impact ADEA-protected employees." Meacham 381 F.3d 56, 61 (C.A.2 2004) (Meacham I). To show disparate impact, workers relied statistical expert's testimony effect results skewed according age could rarely occur chance;[4] "flexibility" "criticality," over most discretionary judgment, firmest ties outcomes. Id., 65. jury found (but claim). Appeals affirmed, examining verdict through lens so-called "burden shifting" scheme inference spelled out Wards Cove Packing Co. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 109 2115, 104 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1989). See I, supra, 74-76.[5] After sought certiorari, we vacated judgment remanded further proceedings light Smith City Jackson, 544 228, 125 1536, 161 410 (2005), decided while petition pending. 957, 1731, 596 (2005). On remand, same panel ruled favor Knolls, dissent. 461 134 2006) (case below) II). majority prior ruling "untenable" because applied "business necessity" standard rather "reasonableness" test, contrary Jackson; latter standard, Meacham, employee, carried burden persuasion. F.3d, 140-141, 144.[6] dissent, Judge Pooler took issue confusing business justifications statutory exemption, she read affirmative defense persuasion falling defendants. 147, 149-152.[7] *2400 noting conflicting decisions assigning reasonableness factor age; this case placed employee (to non-age unreasonable), Ninth Circuit Criswell Western Airlines, 709 F.2d 544, 552 (1983), assigned one). fact up question, find well posed case. Air Lines, Criswell, 472 400, 408, n. 10, 105 2743, 86 321 (1985). granted ___, 1118, 169 846 (2007), now vacate Second remand.[8] II ADEA's general prohibitions against discrimination, §§ 623(a)-(c), (e), subject separate provision, 623(f), creating exemptions practices prohibited subsections (a), (b), (c), (e)." listed 623(f) alongside one bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ): "It shall unlawful . any action otherwise (e) where qualification reasonably necessary normal operation particular business, differentiation based ." Given how statute reads, apart from (and expressly referring conduct such), no surprise have already spoken BFOQ provisions being "five defenses," Trans World Thurston, 469 111, 122, 613, 83 523 looking text, lawyers would accept characterization matter course, thanks familiar principle "[w]hen proviso. carves exception body contract prove it." Javierre Central Altagracia, 217 502, 508, 598, 54 859 (1910) (opinion Holmes, J.); see FTC Morton Salt Co., 334 37, 44-45, 68 822, 92 1196 (1948) ("[T]he proving justification special generally rests benefits ."); First Nat. Bank Houston, 386 361, 366, 87 1088, 18 151 (1967) (citing Salt, 822). That longstanding convention part backdrop Congress writes laws, respect unless compelling reasons think meant put side. Schaffer Weast, 546 49, 57-58, 126 528, 163 387 (2005) ("Absent reason believe intended otherwise, therefore, will conclude lies usually falls, upon party seeking relief"). never given heterodox clause's *2401 nearest neighbor, our cases recognize clause establishes treatment. See, e.g., 233, 3, 1536; 414-419, nn. 24, 29, 2743. likewise construction Equal Pay 1963 pay differentials "any sex," Corning Glass Works Brennan, 417 188, 196, 94 2223, 41 1 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted); there, account weight interpretive noted, when enforcing Fair Labor Standards 1938 (FLSA), id., 196-197, 2223 rule [is] application proof"). This focus makes more instructive cases: "[i]n enacting ADEA, exhibited detailed knowledge FLSA judicial interpretation willingness depart regarded undesirable inappropriate incorporation," Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 581, 98 866, 55 (1978). And remarked "significant indication Congress' intent directive enforced accordance `powers, remedies, procedures' FLSA." 580, 866 (quoting 626(b); emphasis deleted); Fogerty Fantasy, 510 517, 114 1023, 127 455 (1994) (applying reasoning Lorillard); 126, 613 (same). As background, there hint text 623(f)(1) march step either specifically default rules placing claiming it. With these principles mind, impossible look structure imagine works differently next Both exempt illegal reference item proof, thereby falls "one benefits," "party relief," Schaffer, here, "the employer," Works, 2223. If doubt, stress idiom prohibited," prefacing conditions, dispel it.[9] implication underscored contrasting *2402 section Public Employees Retirement System Ohio Betts, 492 158, 2854, 106 (1989), way responded decision there. said former version 623(f)(2), about benefit plans, merely "redefine[d] elements plaintiff's prima facie case," instead "establish[ed] defense" violation Act." 181, 2854.[10] Although contained kind language, "appears reading describe defense." Ibid. nonetheless thought natural view (which taken Thurston) overridden legislative history, peculiarity pretext-revealing condition phrasing (that plan "not [be] subterfuge evade purposes" ADEA), parallel construing "analogous Title VII" (analogous condition). U.S., 2854. later, however, Betts Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Pub.L. 101-433, 978, avowedly "restore original congressional intent" 101. What hand clarifying 623(f)(2) specifies defenses, many words added phrase preface (just 623(f)(1)).[11] thus confirmed language 623(f)(1): refers excuse behavior standing alone, violates statute's prohibition. amendment aftermath shows understands naturally it, clear signal entirely responsibility B ventures regardless, mere *2403 elaboration element liability. Because bars liability "other age," argument goes, directed justifying discrimination proof extenuating negating premise 623(a)(2), "because age." answer argument, prohibition 623(a)(2) extends inferring result presence here.[12] drew recognized distinction between forms liability, explained very definition impact" "an classifies his without may still liable terms paragraph if classification adversely affects employee's 236, 6, 1536 (plurality opinion); 243, (SCALIA, J., concurring judgment) (expressing agreement "all Court's reasoning" plurality opinion, finding deference EEOC independent decision). emphasized kinds activities, mainly test condition: allegedly `otherwise prohibited' activity "in involving plays principal role precluding adverse attributable nonage `reasonable.'" 239, opinion). Thus, made typical case, employer's practice "without (though age") "attributable factor"; "factor place, negation then, focused asserted work; assume was. "reasonable" using. Reasonableness categorically distinct factual necessarily correlated way: lean heavily workers, younger ones, unreasonable might just opposite.[13] *2404 III rejected arrived position different route: Jackson enquiry cases, court concluded "replaces" therefore conform resting complaining party. But court's modified enquiry) mistaken; alone enough reject approach. although satisfied necessity place agree conclusion does stand holding defense. Brief Amicus Curiae 25-27. begin with, inferred (on gave short shrift Part II-A, (with employer). even own terms, supporting Appeals's conclusion. contains statement "Wards Cove's pre-1991 VII's identical remains applicable ADEA," 240, two specific references aspects VII "remain[ed] applicable" cases. existence narrower VII. plaintiff-employee's identifying cause observed 241, 1536. Neither references, odds If, indeed, Jackson's literally include beyond mattered itself, untoward consequences broader out. consequence embraced argues wrong right thinking adopted views claim. For takes plaintiff like himself negate prohibited"; then employer) play. apply tests, force parties develop follow) overlapping enquiries: first, employment (based *2405 age) supported justification; second, one. Depending proceeds, directly contest rationale, else try invoked pretext pointing (for example) alternative less impact. Cove, 658, 2115 ("first, consideration offers use practices; availability achieve ends, racial impact"); 658-661, 2115. succeeded other, Meacham's avoid reasonableness. Here strange: says, "[i]f plaintiffs established challenged intentional little sense ask 26 (emphasis original). Conversely, much point showing alternatives place: why make effort besides, pretext?), everyone knows choice relying good liability?[14] At least, developing substantially redundant direct justification, especially enquiries deal same, narrowly specified practice. It fair remark requiring wasteful proof. Nor line implying business-related plaintiff; obviously, entail longer taking is, more, mind "identical" anything adopted), like-worded did purport construe defenses VII, over-reading lurking assumption say (never have). IV mentioned, get help repeat "point[ing] generalized policy leads impact." obliged more: "isolat[e] identif[y] responsible disparities." *2406 656, 2115; original; internal omitted). aim requirement, said, "result [of] employers potentially `the myriad innocent causes lead imbalances.'" 657, outcome shows, requirement bite: sufficient rejecting employees' challenge they "ha[d] done [was] relatively generous workers," identified within ha[d] workers." Identifying trivial burden, ought allay concern raised amici, fear recognizing encourage strike suits nudge marginal into court, turn inducing alter sued. General Electric 18-31. thing stake gap production persuasion; nobody saying plaintiff. Cf. 528 (burden answers "which loses closely balanced"); 58, ("In truth, few evidentiary equipoise"). plainly shorter producing persuading meritorious. obscure reason, reveal convincing going denying putting factfinders choices harder costlier bore production; nor doubt sometimes affect employees. day, amici's concerns Congress, balance writing orthodox format wrote * before, distinctive nature need preserve degree leeway effects correlate age, "significantly narrow[ing] coverage." "it surprising certain criteria routinely used despite group." realize showed hesitation prevailed though expressed failure meet Whether properly *2407 best instance. vacated, consistent opinion. ordered. BREYER SCALIA, judgment. join itself questions sound Opportunity Commission. represented Solicitor brief signed Commission's Counsel, Commission reasonable-factor-other-than-age bears brought replaces business-necessity contrived Indeed, arguably held burden-of-proof nearly years. 44 Fed.Reg. 68858, 68861 (1979). regulation "discriminatory treatment," CFR 1625.7(e) covers treatment, ante, 2401-2402, 9, logic extension obvious unavoidable. 16, 1. contradict current position: discriminatory-treatment newly minted, undermine consider applies workers. fact, before considered relationship standards, treat identical. 1625.7(d). equation, claims, 25-27, proposed new setting forth position, 73 16807-16809 (2008). administration hands Commission, agency's positions us unquestionably (as ably shows), defer views. Raymond Yates, D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan Hendon, 541 1, 24-25, 124 1330, 158 (2004) judgment). concur Appeals. THOMAS, dissenting part. write separately note continue cognizable 1967, seq. 247-268, S.Ct. *2408 (O'Connor, joined KENNEDY JJ., Moreover, disagree "reasonable (RFOA) exception, 623(f)(1), principally relevant Compare 251-253, judgment), 2402-2403 opinion)). Parts II-A defensewhen arises Here, erred petitioners, affirm claims. NOTES [1] Naval Reactors program lowered limit 108 people; hire 35 existing do, total 143 [2] "performance" worker's appraisals. instruction read: "Rate flexibility Laboratory. Can her documented skills assignments add value future Lab work? Is retrainable assignments?" skills" "How critical continuing Lab? individual's skill key technical resource [Naval Reactors] program? readily accessible available external market?" App. 94-95 [3] comparison: voluntary buyouts, 1,203 2,063 (or 58%) old; 245 risk involuntary included rankings scheme, 179 73%) over. 185 F. Supp. 193, 203 (N.D.N.Y.2002). [4] expert cut data ways, chances 348,000 population all workers); 1,260 layoff); 6,639 (when analysis broken down sections company). 64-65. [5] Taking steps turn, "jury subjective making allowed [layoff procedure] created disparity," 74; answered "facially legitimate justification," "to retaining performance [Knolls's] functions," ibid. petitioners prevail "[a]t suitable record," "could designed [a safeguards subjectivity, particular, tests criticality vulnerable managerial bias," 75. [6] Distinguishing mattered, explained, "[t]here ways [Knolls] goals [Meacham I]), selected unreasonable." II, 146 (citation fall plaintiff, bear ultimate legitimacy justification." 142 659-660, textual signs aside "City permissible leaving criterion reasonable. 142-143. [7] Pooler's view, permissibly defendants unmonitored subjectivity implemented." 153 (dissenting [8] certiorari "[w]hether respondents' conferring broad authority individual lay during constituted `reasonable age' law." Pet. Cert. i. denied express here. [9] seek relief (EEOC) regulations burdens them, neither clearly disavowed overtaken (noting 1625.7(d) (2007) "takes survive" Jackson), seems require ("When practice, including claimed treatment grounds `factor than' individuals protected group, can justified necessity"), ("Unlike asks class, inquiry includes requirement"). second bit stretching cover speaks (concerning "individual treatment"). lately rulemaking revise regulations, eliminating "[w]henever `a raised." (Mar. 31, 2008) (proposed 1625.7(e)). [10] observe retirement, pension, insurance plan, purposes chapter individual." (1982 ed.). [11] surely allocation amendment. upshot suggestion word "otherwise" subsection (e)" refer liability-creating Respondents 33, 7. Besides, proves too much, implies [12] doing so, "safe harbor" provision. 238-239, 252-253, (describing view). [13] causation describes "deprive tend deprive [employees]. typically shown revealing actual Court); cf. 658-659, (1989) (under "specific causation" shown, "prima case" "establish[ed]," identifies linked disparity); Watson Fort Worth Trust, 487 977, 995, 2777, 101 827 (1988) opinion) (in "statistical disparities sufficiently substantial raise causation"). muddled value, "reasonableness," become artificially boosting discounting strength causal link, extent measured open door incoherent undershooting, example, heard "somewhat seeing one"; overshooting reasonable, besides." [14] ("While goals, unreasonable. Unlike

Category: 1