Document: 544 U.S. 228 SMITH ET AL.v.CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, AL. No. 03-1160. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 3, 2004. Decided March 30, 2005. In revising its employee pay plan, respondent City granted raises to all police officers and dispatchers in an attempt bring their starting salaries up the regional average. Officers with less than five years' service received proportionately greater those more seniority, most over 40 had years service. Petitioners, a group older officers, filed suit under Age Discrimination Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), claiming, inter alia, that they were adversely affected by plan because age. The District summary judgment. Affirming, Fifth Circuit ruled disparate-impact claims are categorically unavailable ADEA, but it assumed facts alleged petitioners would entitle them relief Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, which announced theory recovery for cases brought Title VII Civil Rights 1964 (Title VII). Held: judgment is affirmed. 351 F. 3d 183, JUSTICE STEVENS delivered opinion respect Parts I, II, IV, concluding: 1 1. ADEA authorizes comparable Griggs. Except substitution "age" "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," language § 4(a)(2) 703(a)(2) identical. Unlike VII, however, 4(f)(1) significantly narrows coverage permitting any "otherwise prohibited" action "where differentiation based on reasonable factors other age" (hereinafter RFOA provision). Pp. 232-233. 2 2. Petitioners have not set forth valid claim. Two textual differences between make clear theory's scope narrower VII. One provision. amendment 1991, modified this Court's Wards Cove Packing Co. Atonio, 490 642, holding narrowly construed liability theory. Because relevant 1991 amendments expanded VII's did amend speak age discrimination, Cove's pre-1991 interpretation identical remains applicable ADEA. Congress' decision limit ADEA's including provision consistent fact age, unlike protected classifications, uncommonly has relevance individual's capacity engage certain types employment. Here, done little point out relatively generous workers younger ones. They not, as required Cove, identified specific test, requirement, practice within adverse impact workers. Further, record makes City's was explanation differential perceived need junior officers' competitive positions market. Thus, disparate attributable give seniority position. Reliance these unquestionably given goal. 240-243. 3 STEVENS, joined SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, concluded Part III text, provision, Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations support conclusion cognizable 233-240. 4 SCALIA reasoning STEVENS' basis deferring, pursuant Chevron A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, EEOC's view claims. 243-247. 5 O'CONNOR, KENNEDY THOMAS, should be affirmed ground 247-268. 6 J., SCALIA, JJ., joined, III, joined. concurring part judgment, post, p. 243. 247. REHNQUIST, C. took no case. 7 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. 8 Thomas Goldstein argued cause petitioners. With him briefs Amy Howe, Pamela Karlan, Dennis L. Horn. 9 Glen D. Nager respondents. brief Michael Carvin, Louis K. Fisher, Terry Wallace, Samuel Begley.* 10 BREYER join. 11 public safety employed city Jackson, Mississippi City), contend salary increases 1999 violated (ADEA) officers. Their question whether "disparate-impact" 424 (1971), 1964, Despite we yet addressed. See Hazen Paper Biggins, 507 604, 610 (1993); Markham Geller, 451 945 (1981) (REHNQUIST, dissenting from denial certiorari). 12 * On October 1, 1998, adopted granting employees. stated purpose "attract retain qualified people, provide incentive performance, maintain competitiveness sector agencies ensure equitable compensation employees regardless race and/or disability."1 May 1999, revision motivated, at least part, desire average, dispatchers. Those who tenure when compared former seniority. Although some service, more. 13 claiming both deliberately discriminated against (the "disparate-treatment" claim) "adversely affected" claim). Appeals held ruling claim premature entitled further discovery issue intent, dismissal 183 (CA5 2003). Over one judge's dissent, majority Both dissent We petition certiorari, 541 958 (2004), now hold does authorize Because, conclude claim, affirm. II 14 During deliberations preceded enactment Congress considered rejected proposed included among classes employment discrimination.2 General Dynamics Land Systems, Cline, 540 581, 587 (2004). did, request Secretary Labor "make full complete study might tend result discrimination consequences such economy individuals affected." 715, 78 Stat. 265. Secretary's report, submitted response request, noted there arising dislike intolerance "arbitrary" limits. Report Labor, Older American Worker: (June 1965), reprinted Commission, Legislative History (1981), Doc. Wirtz Report). Moreover, report observed discriminatory effects resulted "[i]nstitutional arrangements indirectly restrict workers." Id., 15. 15 directed propose remedial legislation, see Fair Standards Amendments 1966, Pub. 89-601, 606, 80 845, then acted favorably his proposal. As enacted 1967, codified 29 623(a)(2), provided shall unlawful employer "to limit, segregate, classify way deprive individual opportunities otherwise affect status employee, ...." 81 603. word words found Other provisions also parallel earlier statute.3 §4(f)(1) 603, contains 16 determining claims, begin premise uses same two statutes having similar purposes, particularly shortly after other, appropriate presume intended text meaning statutes. Northcross Board Ed. Memphis Schools, 412 427, 428 (1973) (per curiam). consistently applied presumption "derived haec verba VII." Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 584 (1978).4 Our unanimous therefore precedent compelling importance. 17 Griggs, case decided four 703 prohibited "from requiring high school education passing standardized general intelligence test condition transfer jobs (a) neither standard shown related successful job (b) requirements operate disqualify Negroes substantially higher rate white applicants, (c) formerly been filled only longstanding giving preference whites." S., 425-426. Accepting Appeals' diploma without intent discriminate, good faith "does redeem procedures testing mechanisms `built-in headwinds' minority groups unrelated measuring capability." 432. 18 explained "directed thrust practices, simply motivation." Ibid. relied history "filled examples men women rendered highly effective performance conventional badges accomplishment terms certificates, diplomas, degrees. Diplomas tests useful servants, mandated commonsense proposition become masters reality." 433. And (EEOC), enforcement responsibility, issued guidelines accorded our view. 433-434. thus squarely require showing intent.5 19 While primarily purposes Act, buttressed EEOC endorsed view, subsequently represented better reading statutory well. Watson Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 977, 991 (1988). Neither nor prohibits actions "limit, classify" persons; rather "deprive individual's" (explaining cases, "the employer's practices may said `adversely [an status] employee'" (alteration original) (quoting 42 2000e-2(a)(2))). Thus focuses motivation employer.6 20 interpreted here, strongly suggests ADEA.7 Indeed, decades Courts uniformly authorizing cases.8 It 604 (1993), courts liability.9 Paper, address comment decide today. case, employee's allegation he discharged before pension vested state disparate-treatment motivating factor held, prohibit considering terminating employee. 612.10 treatment "captures essence what sought ADEA," id., 610, careful explain deciding "whether available sum, nothing precludes parallels 21 categorical rejection liability, like O'CONNOR'S, rested majority's analysis legislative history. already explained, think particular reference Report, supports pre-Hazen consensus concerning liability. itself concern 22 provides take subsectio[n] (a)... where [discrimination] if subsection first place. 609 ("[T]here feature age"). itself, unnecessary avoid since O'CONNOR suggests, "safe harbor liability," 252 (emphasis deleted), 4(a). Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 254 (noting, can defeat "a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" 23 allegedly activity ("[C]laims stress `disparate impact' [by contrast] involve facially neutral different fall harshly another ..." Teamsters States, 431 324, 335-336, n. (1977))). is, accordingly, involving plays principal role precluding nonage "reasonable." Rather argument actually contrary conclusion.11 24 Finally, note Department initially drafted EEOC, agency charged responsibility implementing statute, 628, initial regulations, while mentioning name, nevertheless permitted CFR 860.103(f)(1)(i) (1970) (barring physical fitness "reasonably necessary work performed"). 1625.7 (2004) (setting standards 25 petitioners' error IV 26 even though theory, identified. second contained 105 1071. modify 642 (1989), exposure 2, subject discrimination. Hence, 27 classifications To sure, recognized always society perceive larger consequential fact. However, "certain circumstances ... strongly, group, do 11. surprising criteria routinely used despite group. intentional occurred levels reflects whenever possible, historical difference. 28 Turning us, enough allege workers, generalized policy leads impact. Rather, "`responsible isolating identifying responsible statistical disparities.'" 656 added) Watson, 994). failed so. failure identify being challenged sort omission could "result employers potentially liable `the myriad innocent causes lead imbalances ....'" 657. err failing practice, divided each basic — officer, master sergeant, lieutenant, deputy chief into series steps half-steps. wage range survey communities Southeast. Employees assigned step (or half-step) position corresponded lowest still 2% raise. Most three ranks; ranks 40. none compensation. few highest raises, dollar amount smaller percentage salaries, course paid juniors. members class complaining "disparate impact" award. 30 Petitioners' evidence established facts: First, almost two-thirds (66.2%) 10% half (45.3%) did.12 Second, average increase entire somewhat seniority.13 tended occupy senior positions, measured salary. raise 31 rank goal raising employees' match surrounding communities. grant lower echelon bringing line forces "reasonable facto[r] responded legitimate retaining Cf. MacPherson University Montevallo, 922 2d 766, 772 (CA11 1991). 32 ways achieve goals, selected unreasonable. business necessity asks goals class, reasonableness inquiry includes requirement. 33 Accordingly, agree never affirm 34 so ordered. 35 CHIEF Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Academy Florida Trial Lawyers John G. Crabtree; Cornell Chapter Association Professors et al. Evan Gold; National Cathy Ventrell-Monsees Adele P. Kimmel. amici affirmance California Law Council Paul Grossman, W. Cane, Jr., Neal Mollen; Chamber Commerce States America Peter Buscemi, Anne Brafford, Mark Dichter, Stephen Bokat, Robin Conrad; Advisory Ann Elizabeth Reesman; League Cities Richard Ruda James I. Crowley; Pacific Legal Foundation H. Findley. Laurie McCann, Daniel B. Kohrman, Melvin Radowitz AARP curiae. App. 110 Cong. Rec. 2596-2599 (1964) (amendment offered Rep. Dowdy, voted down 123 94);id., 9911-9913, 13490-13492 Sen. Smathers, 63 28). Like except race, affirmative defense bona fide occupational qualification reasonably normal operation 4(f)(1), 703(e), 256 ("Notwithstanding title, [unlawful perform activities §§ 703(a)-(d)] origin instances enterprise ...") Oscar Mayer Evans, 441 750, 756 (1979) (interpreting 14(b) light 706(c) VII); Western Air Lines, Criswell, 472 400, 416 (1985) exception BFOQ exception); Trans World Airlines, Thurston, 469 111, 121 apply privileges manner congressional inGriggs striking important points made Report. Just racial animus problem significant kind far concerned. 6. just unfair African-Americans inferior educational segregated schools, 430, obstacle "Any formal requires, example, will obviously many unfairly if, limited schooling, worker's experience equivalent education." 3. identical, remarkable similarity cited present reaching conclusion, ignores key 4(a)(1), encompass 4(a)(2). Paragraph (a)(1) fail refuse hireany age." (Emphasis added.) focus paragraph targeted individual. (a)(2), (a)(1), incongruity focused generally suffers actions. classifies classification affects very definition quite wrong suggest paragraphs unimportant. reaches history, structure statute. above, 6,supra, her persuasive. remedy disparate-impact-type situations through "noncoercive measures" measures sole method achieving desired remedying effect relevant, well treat differently. 253 (O'CONNOR, judgment). sufficiently warrant enacting prohibit. differences, coupled difference statute addressing differently, infra, 240-241, justify departing plain settled text. Lindemann Kadue, 416, (2003) (citingHolt Gamewell Corp., 797 36, 37 (CA1 1986); Maresco Evans Chemetics, 964 106, 115 (CA2 1992); Blum Witco Chemical 829 367, 372 (CA3 1987); Wooden Jefferson Cty., Ky., 931 376, 379 (CA6 1991); Monroe 736 394, 404, (CA7 1984); Dace ACF Industries, 722 374, 378 (CA8 1983), modified, 728 976 (1984) curiam); Palmer 794 534, 536 (CA9 Faulkner Super Valu Stores, 1419 (CA10 1993) (assuming theory); 771 Arnold Postal Serv., 863 994, 998 (CADC 1988) theory)). See,e.g., Mullin Raytheon 164 696, 700 1999) ("[T]ectonic plates shifted [Hazen Paper]"); Gantt Wilson Sporting Goods 143 1042, 1048 1998) considerable doubt exist theory" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Law, 417-418, (collecting cases). contrast Seventh, Tenth, Eleventh Circuits, Eighth, Ninth Circuits continue recognize 417, 22. note, conduct actionable 510 Employee Retirement Income Security 1974. 612 certainly For instance, Pay 1963, 206(d)(1), barred "on factor" unreasonable "other sex." use onlyreasonable defending instructive. Exh. C, Record 1192 Pet. Cert. 41a 36 I concur Court, join opinion. Part, reasoning, find basis, independent determination question, deferral views (EEOC Commission) 837 (1984). 601-602 (SCALIA, dissenting). 38 This absolutely classic deference interpretation. 621 seq., confers upon authority "such rules consider carrying out" 628. Pursuant authority, promulgated, notice-and-comment rulemaking, 46 Fed. Reg. 47724, 47727 regulation reads follows: "When claimed applicants grounds `factor than' justified necessity." 1625.7(d) 39 statement accompanied publication agency's final following regarding regulation: "Paragraph (d) rewritten age-neutral face must necessity. Laugesen Anaconda 307 (6th Cir. 1975); (1971)." Reg., 47725. affirmed, moreover, previously administered ante, 239; (1970). finally, appeared numerous courts, party amicus curiae, defend claims.1 Even unduly constrained recited Mead 533 218 (2001), deserving deference. 229-231, 12. A fortiori, pre-Mead formulation Chevron, adhere. 256-257 denies taken existence asserts that, has, deserve 264-267 (opinion cannot squared regulation, quoted above. possibly read agnostic aged. "can necessity," absent "business prohibited.2 41 defer does, because, she says, purport interpret 4(a) all," (RFOA) clause says issue. Post, assumes, operates independently remainder not. Section provides, part: "It employer, agency, labor organization subsections (a), (b), (c), (e) section 623(f)(1) added). clear, unavoidable "adverse group." And, course, conceivably prohibition 4(a)(2)— maintains all." 265.3 43 Lastly, argues concludes regulation's term—the term age," takes include necessity" 266. Her logic seems interpretations appear paragraph, stand together. She cites proposition, sense. If simultaneously distinct paragraphs, invalidation render infirm. (JUSTICE mean imply, assume, application phrase "`reasonable age'" relieves obligation applications (e)). conceive rule paragraph. 44 express promulgate interpreting exercised reasons plurality opinion, eminently reasonable. my sufficient resolve Brief Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees Meacham Knolls Atomic Lab., 02-4083(L) etc. (CA2), 12, http://www.eeoc.gov/briefs/meacha.txt (all Internet materials visited Mar. 24, 2005, Clerk file) ("The defended [the (2004)], arguing cognizable."); Plaintiffs-Appellants Seeking Reversal Sitko Goodyear Tire Rubber 02-4083 (CA6), 8, http://www.eeoc.gov/sitkov.txt (pending); McDonnell Douglas 191 948, 950-951 1999). Perhaps adopts impact, stopped short recognizing impactclaims." 265 judgment) so, equally misguided. extra harmed right sue; automatic. 626(c)(1) ("Any person aggrieved civil court competent jurisdiction legal effectuate chapter ..."). necessarily construe treatmentalso addresses viz., "an group," 265-266. That true enough. But here (when impact) covered regulation; sorts covered; (consistently reaffirmed years) are. O'CONNOR's refer §4(a)(2) "applicants employment," 4(a)(1). (as posits) results impact; perhaps sweep mistaken. whatever addition cover, erroneously seek impossible cover produces group; 45 whom THOMAS join, "Disparate captures [Age seq.] fired believes productivity competence decline old (1993). nearly enactment, impose proof intent. ibid.; doing 47 instead below together intend counsel transposing construction latter (1971). administering authoritatively statute's prohibitory precise reasoned defer. 48 49 employer: 50 "(1) hire discharge discriminate compensation, terms, conditions, employment, age; [or] 51 "(2) 623(a). 52 obvious plainly requires "because "by reason of" account Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1961); (1977) ("`Disparate treatment' easily understood type treats people others [protected characteristic]. Proof motive critical" added)). 53 look 4(a)(2), founders natural precisely preceding motivated 54 Paragraphs (a)(2) differ informative respect. i. e., refusing hire, discharging, discriminating inherently harmful referred hand i.e., limiting, segregating, classifying neutral. additional clarifies rise injure someone: [an] employee." distinction aside, structures Each taking specified 55 individual's] employe[e] Under reading, refers action. 235-236. unpersuasive reasons. paragraphs. second, drafters' comma separating language. read, it, affect" phrase. See, e. g., Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 235, 241 (1989) aside language); Garner, Modern Usage 101 (2d ed. 1995) ("Generally, follow comma"). modifies entirety paragraph: An harms 56 supported supposed "incongruity" (a)(2)'s plural referring ("limit, employees") singular clause. (Emphases Ante, 236, Not stated, (a)(2). phrased (insofar relating employees) harm individual). forbids (alone others) harmed. B 57 intentionally "[i]t 623(f)(1). "insure[s] [are] criteria" Wyoming, 460 226, 232-233 (1983), expresses intention age-based policy, reconciled plurality's expansive 58 plurality, provision's confirms goes, "`otherwise prohibited'" 238-239. applies factors. 239. 59 misconstrues Discriminatory 4(a), discussed afford safe plaintiff prima facie "creat[ing] unlawfully employee," rebut producing factor. codifies analogous "legitimate, (LNR) justification later suits. Ibid.; Corp. Green, 411 792, 802 (1973). 60 Assuming framework suits, O'Connor Consolidated Coin Caterers 517 308, 311 (1996), "rebuttal" function arguably redundant judicially LNR justification. But, most, merely demonstrates abundance caution codifying exemption absence Stewart Schools FLRA, 495 641, 646 (1990) (provisions although "technically unnecessary," sometimes "inserted drafting imprecision venerable left mark Latin (ex abundanti cautela)"). noteworthy decided, continued rely exemption, lieu justification, rebutting Krieg Revere Life Ins. 718 998, 999 1983) Schwager Sun Oil Pa., 591 58, 61 1979); Bittar Canada, 512 582, 582-583 1975) event, (and clearly nonredundant) "mixed-motive" cases. substantial Desert Palace, Costa, 539 90, 93 (2003); Price Waterhouse Hopkins, 228, 262-266 lawful long "based on" "reasonable" serves prevent gaining benefit offering irrational indicate fact, pretext Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 133, 147 (2000); 613-614. 62 indicates drafters qualitatively kinds addressed determined best noncoercive measures, reserved combating proposals 715 undertake submit containing recommendations legislation arbitrary determines advisable," 586-587 (2004); supra, 229. response, Willard blueprint modeled Report's findings recommendations, critical insights meaning. Blumrosen, Interpreting ADEA: Intent Impact 14-20, Act: Compliance Litigation Manual Personnel Practitioners 83-89 (M. Lake 1982); Dynamics, 587-590 (relying ADEA); 230-231 (discussing ADEA). 64 reached conclusions central presented emphasized (i. discrimination). importantly stark towards unfounded assumptions about relationship ability job. addition, whereas completely characteristics "there job." deleted). 65 drew sharp "`arbitrary discrimination'" (which equates treatment) 21-22. defined assumptions." original). "most kind" setting unjustified maximum limits 6, naturally encompasses broad treatment. 66 distinguished unfounded) phenomena. involves genuine connection, examined "circumstances workers," questions health, attainment, technological change. 11-14.1 assessed "institutional arrangements" rules, workers' laws, plans which, likely them. 15-17. 67 specifically recommended "arbitrary discrimination," contrast, "discrimination"— measures: programs availability employment; continuing education; adjustment systems, institutional arrangements. 22-25. These direct expression command "specific [Wirtz Report's] conclusions," 845. 589 ("[T]he begins statements mirror Report"). 68 (i.e., assumptions), measures. sets draws potential performance" desirable [that] disadvantage persons." U.S.C. 621(a)(2). problems, identifies "[1] promote persons [2] [and 3] help meeting problems employment." 621(b). 69 corresponds substantive sections follow. seeks "promote persons" directing program research needs abilities potentials contribution economy." 622(a). 4, core prohibitions, purpose: "prohibit third involuntary retirement" resulting Congress. 624(a)(1). 70 effect: plain, drafters. meant predominantly ability. 255-256. Again, research, education, possible future C 71 telling devoid discussion complicated issues context. Gold, Disparate Berkeley J. Emp. Lab. At time enacted, predominant antidiscrimination law discrimination; concept novel. Griggs' Folly: Essay Theory, Problems, Origin Adverse Definition Recommendation Reform, Indus. Rel. 429, 518-520 (1985); Strangers Paradise: Concept Discrimination, Mich. Rev. 59, 69-71 (1972-1973). Had inaugurate expect indication There none. D 72 understandable questionable utility age-discrimination No argue suffered disadvantages entrenched patterns minorities have. Massachusetts Bd. Murgia, 427 307, 313-314 (1976) 5-6. justified, necessary, means redressing cumulative past 430 (reasoning perpetuation 73 correctly often correlation 11-15. expected, "physical declines 315, mental capacity, Gregory Ashcroft, 501 452, (1991). importantly, advances technology increasing access leave vis-à-vis Beyond performance-affecting factors, benefits, salary, vacation time, forth, gains Finnegan 967 1161, 1164 1992) ("[V]irtually elements package positively correlated decisions cut costs respond market disproportionate Given hardly declined solely effects. 74 offer arguments favor statute: pari materia interpretive weight 75 on, to, McKennon Nashville Banner Publishing 513 352, 357 (1995); (1978). permits similarly. 233-238. 76 Obviously, great deal convincing enacted. safely assume notice intended) Energy Ohio, 503 607, 626 (1992); Holmes Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 258, 268 (1992). suppose foreseen come. Fogerty Fantasy, 517, 523, (1994); 258 novelty enactment). 77 strong [they] passu." rigid absolute rule, "`readily yields'" indicia 595 Atlantic Cleaners Dyers, 286 433 (1932)). "`the [of words] vary meet law.'" Cleveland Indians Baseball 532 200, 213 (2001) 433). hesitated appearing separate uniformly. 595-597 ("age" parts Indians, ("wages paid" meanings C.); Robinson Shell 519 337, 343-344 (1997) ("employee" Fogerty, 522-525 (Copyright Act's attorney's fees "virtually language"). Such here. protects 251-253, lacks combat 4's prohibitions mechanisms. 256-258. analogy Furthermore, Congresses recognized, 253-255. nature aging inappropriate 258-259. 79 extend tacitly acknowledges, actual ratio decidendi purpose, equality remove barriers operated identifiable procedures, face, maintained `freeze' quo prior practices." 429-430. words, ostensible eliminating rationale finds context, 313-314, control 82 canons bow, overcome default 523-524 (concluding "normal indication" similarly "overborne" statutes). 83 administration "have [statute] theory." describes 1968 bulletin "permitt[ing]" (citing (1970)). cites, comment, Opportunities construing 240 (2004)). unclear value assign statements. least, thinks (1984), "that case." 247 disagree and, follow, question. 84 alludes "provide `a practical guide how office representing interest it.'" 860.1 Skidmore Swift 323 134, 138 (1944)). discussing states requirements" "[e]valuation quantity quality production, level" qualify qualifications applied. 860.103(f)(1), (2). provisions, imply establishes nonexclusive objective qualifying the" exemption. Public System Ohio Betts, 492 158, 172 bulletin's 4(f)(2) exemption). unequivocally "[t]he ADEA] insure prescribed making hiring, dismissal, promotion term, privilege individual." 860.103(c) 85 unhelpful. "interpretative statement," promulgated 1981, superseded enforcing transferred EEOC. 47724 (1981). states, 86 "[W]hen 87 replaces, spells haven. authorized 88 "[t]his interpretation." 243 disagree. ambiguous language, 843-844, requisite "force law," Christensen Harris County, 529 576, (2000). explicitly implicitly delegated choose permissible constructions 844. us all. Quite simply, ambiguity much persuasive manner. presented, therefore, Hancock Mut. Trust Sav. Bank, 86, 106-109, SEC Sloan, 436 103, 117-118 (1978); Adamo Wrecking 275, 287-289, (1978).2 89 SCALIA's link premised dubious chain inferences highlights hazards approach. "relevant `otherwise prohibited' reasons, "unavoidable meaning" interprets "employer `adverse group.'" 246 ibid., "unavoidable." wants say, sure related. limitation sense effectuating 253. completes analytical inferring allow "conceivably" interpreted. 246. inference doubtful, say least. "different employment" 4(a)(1) 249. 90 illustrate why attribute articulated "defer" reading. approach troubling weighty contemplated. 91 directly odds today's rightly so: advance necessary. 243; 419 (distinguishing necessity'" "reasonableness"). Of elementary "no due itself." 171. misread attempting construe. dispositive improvidence (let alone deferring) purported assumption entirely acknowledge answering presented. 92 allowed, strictly circumscribed 241-242. rationally objective. 240, governed (1989). means, holds, 241, demonstrate created attack," 657 added); 994 (1988) J.). once produced factor, bears burden disproving assertion. 659-660; 997 requirements. connection diploma. requirement "unfair" educationIbid. mistaken "goal" 5. context broader "wholly impersonal properly, too casually, called `progress.'" pace changing technology, jobs, requirements, personnel practices," "increase[d] special efforts prospects improve significantly." 11-15 attainments health change, "The Necessary Recognition Forces Circumstance"). 23-25. issue, degree entitled. CfGeneral 600 (declining deference).

Category: 1