Opinion ID: 788410
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Factors Other than Age (RFOA) Exception

Text: 114 Although Yellow Cab invoked, and both parties addressed, the affirmative RFOA defense in their motions for summary judgment, the defense fails as a matter of law as well. Yellow Cab asserted below that its employment decision fell within the ADEA exception for actions taken where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). Here, however, Yellow Cab differentiated Mr. Enlow from other drivers precisely and only because of his age — making the defense inapplicable. See EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529, 1541 (2d Cir.1996) (By its terms, the statute supplies an exception for `age-neutral' decisions based on other factors such as health or even education that might be correlated with age ... not an exception for policies that explicitly but reasonably discriminate based on age.). Moreover, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations interpreting the ADEA state that the reasonable factors other than age defense is unavailable where an employment practice uses age as a limiting criterion.... 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(c). 115 The EEOC regulations also provide that a differentiation based on the average cost of employing older [workers] ... does not qualify under this exception. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(f). Citing that regulation, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a cost-savings defense in a case with almost identical facts as the case before us. In Tullis v. Lear Sch., Inc., 874 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir.1989), a private school fired a 66-year-old bus driver because its insurance carrier only covered drivers 65 or younger. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the school's decision to dismiss the driver was based on his age, id. at 1490-91, and that the increased insurance cost for the school did not exempt it from complying with the ADEA. Id. at 1490.