Opinion ID: 2516473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Theories of Employment Discrimination Based on Age

Text: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1995 & Supp.1997), prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age. The ADEA provides anti-discrimination protections for employees aged forty and over. Id. Generally, an individual alleging employment discrimination under the ADEA may pursue one or more of three available theories of discrimination: (1) intentional discrimination against a protected class to which the plaintiff belongs (also known as pattern-or-practice discrimination); [2] (2) unintentional discrimination based on a neutral employment policy that has a disparate impact on a protected class to which the plaintiff belongs (also known as disparate impact discrimination); [3] or (3) intentional discrimination against an individual who belongs to a protected class (also known as individual disparate treatment discrimination). [4] In this case, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant intentionally discriminated against her because of her age ( i.e., that she was subjected to disparate treatment). A plaintiff can prove disparate treatment in two ways. First, under the direct evidence or mixed motive approach, the plaintiff must show by direct evidence that discriminatory factors motivated the adverse employment decision. See, e.g., Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1187 (2d Cir.1992) (stating that what is required (for mixed-motive analysis) is simply that the plaintiff submit enough evidence that, if believed, could reasonably allow a jury to conclude that the adverse employment consequences were `because of' an impermissible factor); Caban-Wheeler v. Elsea, 71 F.3d 837, 842-43 (11th Cir.1996) (involving black decisionmaker who told white employee that decisionmaker wanted black person to have white employee's job). If the plaintiff can make this showing, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it would have taken the same adverse employment action against plaintiff absent the discrimination. See Eskra v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 125 F.3d 1406, 1411 (11th Cir.1997). Second, a plaintiff may attempt to prove individual disparate treatment by adducing circumstantial evidence of discrimination. When analyzing an individual's disparate treatment claim that relies on circumstantial evidence of employer discrimination, we have previously applied the burden-shifting analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Teague, 89 Hawai`i at 279 n. 10, 971 P.2d at 1114 n. 10 (citing Furukawa, 85 Hawai`i at 12, 936 P.2d at 648).