Document: 434 U.S. 192 98 S.Ct. 444 54 L.Ed.2d 402 UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner,v.Harris S. McMANN. No. 76-906. Argued Oct. 4, 1977. Decided Dec. 12, Syllabus The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which applies to persons between the ages 40 and 65, makes it unlawful for an employer discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against him with respect his compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment because such individual's age. specifies, however, § 4(f)(2) that shall not be observe terms a bona fide seniority system employee benefit plan as retirement, pension, insurance is "subterfuge" evade Act's purposes. Petitioner inaugurated retirement income 1941, respondent voluntarily joined 1964 after he had signed application form showed normal age participants category 60 years. After was retired upon reaching brought this suit under Act, contending solely violated Act. District Court granted motion summary judgment filed by petitioner, contended compliance joined. Appeals reversed. Though been conceded petitioner's "in sense exists pays benefits," court ruled pre-age-65 within meaning unless can show "early provision . has some economic business purpose other than arbitrary discrimination." Held : Petitioner's comes exception, context must given its ordinary scheme stratagem avoid There nothing suggest Congress intended invalidate plans were instituted good faith before passage require employers justify antedated enactment statute. Pp. 195-203. 542 F.2d 217, 4 Cir., reversed remanded. Arnold T. Aikens, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Francis G. McBride, Alexandria, Va., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented case whether, over objection prior 65 permissible provisions established 1941 1964. We certiorari resolve conflict holdings Fifth Circuit Brennan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 500 212 (1974), Fourth now us. See Zinger Blanchette, 549 901 (CA3 1977), cert. pending, 76-1375. 2 * operative facts stipulated parties are controverted here. McMann United Air Lines, Inc., 1944, continued until at 1973. Over years held various positions technical specialist-aircraft systems. At time first employed, maintained formal eligible participate, but compelled join.1 He January 3 reached 60th birthday on 23, 1973, February 1, objection. then notice intent sue violation pursuant 29 U.S.C. 626(d). Although received from Department Labor United's did appear subterfuge purposes suit. McMann's seeking injunctive relief, reinstatement, backpay alleged forced response On stipulated, judgment. 5 In benefits."2 But McMann, supported brief amicus curiae Secretary Labor, enforcement age-60 provision, even Act.3 6 agreed, holding falls ha[s] 221 (CA4, 1976). remanded allow opportunity sought review 7 reverse. II 8 Section 2(b) 81 Stat. 602, recites 9 "to promote older based their ability rather age; prohibit discrimination employment; help workers find ways meeting problems arising impact employment." 621(b). 10 4(a)(1) 603, 11 employment, ." 623(a)(1). 12 covers individuals 631, does all retirements 65; permitted 4(f)(2), provides: 13 "It labor organization—to plan, [Act], except no excuse failure hire 623(f)(2). 14 infra, 198-202. 15 argues term "normal age" defined "A Participant's Normal Retirement Date day month following birthday." From contends mean mandatory 60, therefore retire terms" required 4(f)(2). As claim, we accept analysis Circuit: 16 "While word 'normal' free doubt, counsel agreed oral argument manner operated practice. discretion whether continue beyond legally may retain employees past never done so: policy Given these facts, conclude decision, should regarded one requiring permitting option employer." F.2d, 219. (Emphasis supplied.) 17 grievance challenging since, former pilot, position pilots' roster. arbitration proceeding urged "normal" means "average" so long participant health fit duty retained 60. ruling " '[n]ormal' regular standard, average, only matter linguistics also general pension settled practice United." It involuntary "was taken accordance uniformly applied members bargaining unit." 18 made separate finding context, definition ascribed award incorporated reference court's findings conclusions. light found Court, Appeals' view "normal."4 19 215, establishment "eliminat[ed] notion adopted evasion."5 rejecting reasoning, emphasized distinguished distinction relied untenable vehicle expressed carried out; difficult conceive other. 20 authorize make economically feasible give lesser benefits provided younger employees. persuaded language have limited effect. 21 (1977), Third both decisions. accepted purposes, which, setting, do not, nevertheless concluded: 22 "The primary prevent hiring discharging workers. is, clear, measurable difference outright cannot overlooked analyzing While without compensation obviously undesirable, adequate generally favor. A careful examination legislative history demonstrates that, while cognizant disruptive effect individuals, regard favorably chose legislate discharge." 905. supplied; footnote omitted.) dissent relies heavily history, traditional canons interpretation irrelevant unambiguous However, recourse turn aspect demonstrate absence indication congressional undermine countless existing 1967 when passed. Such pervasive read into expression 23 When Senate Subcommittee considering bill, Willard Wirtz, asked what would plans. His was: 24 my [of original bill] protect almost I know anything about. plans." Hearings 830 Committee Public Welfare, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 53 (1967) (hereafter Hearings).6 25 present later proposed amendments, Wirtz again commented protected. H.R. 4221 et al. General House Education (1967). 26 Senator Javits' concern administration version legislation being debated, flexibility incurring extraordinary expenses inclusion inferred dissent, programs still allowed. said, 27 permits separation meets part problem. provide amount payable depending hired, thus actually encourage employers, faced necessity paying greatly increased premiums, look excuses they might hired them law granting degree matters. 28 "That recommend. "We recommend used place fight battle ought subordinate importance favor equal treatment condition 27.7 30 keeping objective Javits amendment, calling "a fairly broad exemption systems will facilitate deter possible employed disrupting those systems." Id., 28. 31 true behind lost representatives organized labor; viewed protecting employer's right pre-65 objected basis. director AFL-CIO testified: 32 likewise see reason why should, section Administration permit 65. Involuntary could forced, regardless employee, subject limitation merely Act." 96. 33 order suggested "Amendment Eliminate Provision Permitting Substitute Therefor Safeguarding Bona Fide Seniority Merit Systems," deleted exception. 100. This amendment rejected. 34 But, noted Zinger, 907, remained bill enacted notwithstanding labor's objection, added. basis final acceptance request benefit-plan deleted; plain statute shows there, albeit different terms. 35 Also added emerged "except individual." Rather reading addendum redundancy, post, 212, n. 5, clear result observance discourage Supra, 200. Giving each leads inescapably conclusion plans, existence person 36 doubt fully appreciated bills. aware concerns, knew amend focus join. 40. making employ compulsion include pre-existing 37 misconceives said debate. dialogue Senators Yarborough, minority majority managers respectively, set out below8 clearly awareness vitality retirements. III 38 case, course, our function narrowly confined discerning statutory language; pass wisdom fixed particular So limited, indicate wholesale invalidation passage, bear burden showing concluded. parlance, dictionary definitions well, scheme, stratagem, artifice evasion. statute, assume sense. read, if fide, here, passed later. To spell requirement attributes, very least, remarkable prescience employer. reject per se rule satisfy Act.9 39 Accordingly, further proceedings consistent opinion. Reversed 41 STEWART, concurring 42 621 seq., forbids expressly provides "subterfuge purposes" 43 fide. issue, then, think simply contemplated "evade" either 44 Since 623(f)(2) face action lawful, unnecessary address questions discussed Court's WHITE. 45 WHITE, 46 agree STEWART violate disagree proposition necessarily lawful 623(f)(2), passage. Even conceding believe decision aspects became effective 1968 separately examined determine proscribed 47 indicates exception contained "applies new maintenance H.R.Rep.No.805, (emphasis supplied); S.Rep.No.723, supplied), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2217. statement Reports there magic fact plan's scrutinized. For reason, bound same post-Act adopt plan. 48 No legal altering who desired working so; most concluded elected apply uniformly. ante, 196. Because date terminate inquiry observation considered proceed consider crucial question: Does reaches 65? My Part opinion, convinces me not. 49 demonstrates, passing intend unlawful. recommending Congress, President Johnson specifically "special situations where separated system." 113 Cong.Rec. 1089-1090 (1967).1 Pursuant recommendation, bills referred committee excepted prohibition,2 slight changes, Congress. correctly concludes, changes intended, eliminate protection meet additional concerning applicability hired. discussion change extensive, indicated broaden unacceptable dissent's acceded suggestion eliminated. 50 recognized "bona fide" substantial benefits. court, support "some purpose." (CA4 Rather, exempt prohibition whose services workers—as pay unreasonably small "retirements" short discharges. 51 What little no-subterfuge restatement 31255 significant "intended 199. distinctions age, fail how language, included way through, impose meet. interpret actions designed 52 exclusively adoption concluding unlawful, join Instead, approach 76-1375, hold valid MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. Today encounter sharply limits reach important law. apparent disregard principles construction, gives unduly narrow remedy workplace. misinterprets respectfully dissent. 55 4(a)(1), latter refuse [between 65] age." 56 tracks 703(a)(1) Civil Rights 1964, 2000e-2(a)(1).1 interpreted forbidding improper criteria, race sex, selecting retired. With courts reasoned "tantamount discharge," Bartmess Drewrys U. A., 1186, 1189 (CA7), denied, 404 939, 92 274, 252 (1971) "discriminat[ing] against" "with [a] employment," Peters Missouri-Pacific R. 483 490, 492 (CA5), 414 1002, 94 356, 238 (1973); Rosen Service Electric Gas 477 90, 94-95 1973); supra, 1188-1189.2 57 constructions differently, construe identical two statutes manner. remains sanctions act. That 58 [the Act] 59 assumes face. Ante, premise. view, susceptible least interpretations, consonant preclude covered reading, allows paid available certain including plans.3 Alternatively, it, 198. critical question, phrase "employee plan," here "retirement, encompasses rules defining retirees receive, mandating 61 need decide strictly grammatical preferable. judges, linguists, task divine intent, using evidence. "[W]ords inexact tools best, wisely resort explanatory 'clear words "superficial examination." ' Harrison Northern Trust 317 476, 479, 63 361, 363, 87 L.Ed. 407 (1943), quoting States American Trucking Assns., 310 534, 544, 1059, 1064, 84 1345 (1940). Train Colorado Interest Research Group, 426 10, 96 1938, 1942, (1976). 62 establishes quarrel proposition. Understanding purpose, aids determining already employed. 199-202, WHITE relies, 206, unpersuasive, since primarily references enacted. administration, permissible. initial quite allowed retirement. provided: 64 involuntarily 4221, Sess Thus remarks Javits, representative 199-201, properly reflect existed authorized 4(a) differs significantly bill. specific authorization deleted. deletion itself unwise; strongly supports view. 66 Two sets objections during hearings.4 Many persons, Committees, "not matters." Statement Sen. 27; also, e. g., 62-63 (statement Counsel, Chamber Commerce States). Representatives voiced totally 4(f)(2); argued coverage 98; 413. addition, receive express 4(f). 67 hearings, Committees changed form. By adding systems, abrogated. addition plainly responsive numerous criticisms workers.5 third made—the retirement—was criticisms, reasonable inference drawn deletion, therefore, responding removing exceptions statute's prohibitions. While, notes, 201, adopted, offers alternative explanation explicit retirement.6 68 contrast hearings repeated similar statements debates amended example, explain follows: 69 "This serves emphasize bill—hiring workers—by vita[l] legislation, witnesses hearings." H.R.Rep.No. 805, 70 S.Rep.No. 723, (1967),7 Nowhere Indeed, emphasis encouraging allowing ancillary benefits, accords variations. Moreover, sponsors explained preceding mention possibility incompatible interpretation.8 exchange floor manager manager, illustrative: 71 "Mr. JAVITS. An afford exactly affords If worker chooses waive provisions, obtain act, compel through use act undertake special relationship, act— understand that—in others. 72 "I like ask agrees interpretation, necessary 73 YARBOROUGH. wish say basically understanding line 22, page clause 2, subsection (f) refers man Say applicant 55, seeks company bargained union moneys put up anyone worked 55-year-old denied able participate unlike 44, chance earn words, disrupt bargained-for deny prospective limit rights full consideration 74 thank colleague. people." added).9 75 criticized going far enough lend Young spoke eloquently subjecting aged "[c]ompulsory programs" proclaimed, "have forged iron collar" Americans "ready, willing able" work 31256. alluded compulsory permitted, unmistakable premise considered, prohibited. Ibid. Others Cong.Rec., 34745 (remarks Rep. Smith); id., 34750 Randall). tenor substance inconceivable Congressmen silent understood 65.10 76 Any correctness dispelled anomaly results contrary interpretation. Under §§ job If, holds, simple route regain job: reapply vacancy created applicant, And someone experience performing tasks "vacant" once held, likely better qualified applicant. next. loathe attribute intention produce bizarre result. 77 One exemption. remedial designed, own [and] 2(b), well "be liberal exemptions sweep narrowed intended." Piedmont Co. ICC, 286 299, 311-312, 541, 545, 1115 (1932). Phillips Walling, 324 493, 807, 808, 89 1095 (1945). broadly flouts fundamental principle construction. 78 mischief fashions today lived. Both amendments 123 H9984-9985 (daily ed. Sept. 1977); S17303 19, 1977). Thus, today's virtually effect.11 Houses understood, prohibits clarification necessitated decisions misconstruing intent. H.R.Rep. 95-527, pp. 5-6 (1977); (additional views Weiss, Javits); [i]S.Rep. 95-493, 9-10 (1977).12 misconstrued thereby deprived many afford, dissent.13 group annuity contract life companies. concession behalf submission Solicitor wrote letter Clerk stating Government prepared file three weeks. Rules filing briefs argument. Rule 42. leave filed. note, too, Labor's issued nearly contemporaneously program itself, render invalid, insofar concerned." CFR 860.110(a) Department's more recent "are optional Annual Report (1975). Having concluded, Appeals, calls further. Similarly, De Loraine MEBA Pension Trust, 499 (CA2), 419 1009, 95 329, 284 1955 subterfuge. forbade purport it. 7. Steiner National League Professional Baseball Clubs, 377 F.Supp. 945, 948 (C.D.Cal.1974), aff'd 74-2604 (CA9, 15, 1975), rejected idea saying: "Obviously evolved attempt circumvent public law." Legislative observations history. 218. Reference 219 13, recital Report. states: "[Section 4(f)(2)] (1967), 2213, italicized portion refusing employment. Other recommended President, occupational qualification, discharged cause 830, Sess. (1967); individual, race, color, religion, national origin." Courts discriminatory 703(a)(2) proscribes classification "adversely affect status employee," 2000e-2(a)(2). 1189; 495. 4(a)(2) 623(a)(2), includes prohibition. illustrated Yarborough's example 4(f)(2): "Say plan." Hearings); Hearings). Committees' reflected providing "no certainly authorizing add variation state looked approach. 298-315; 501-518 (e. Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Pennsylvania). follow model significance. Report's description, although identical, vital. page. During raise stated adequately variations permitted. 27. Although, offered point hint revised acknowledged permissibility administration's explaining length surely adverted somehow finds above approval Yarborough 202. thought forcefully pieces modicum First, testified about Committee's modification responded "[w]e count involving matters problem." reasonably called "clarification." event, entitled less weight Maintenance Employes States, 366 169, 176-177, 913, 916-917, 206 (1961); Leedom Mine, Mill, Smelter Workers, 352 145, 149-150, 154, 156-157, 201 (1956). Second, floor, Eilberg Olsen, voicing people needed opportunities open them. 34746. entirely referring future, implicitly expressing stand opposition import every House, Reports. resolved "the intimately connected statute." 916-917. quoted 215. Indeed clarification, immediately; contrast, alterations deferred. cite discuss 76-1375; (CA5 1974); instant case. 5; S.Rep. 10. occasion 197-198, 204, involved Act]," am emphatic disagreement pre-Act state: note [§

Category: 1