Legal Document

507 U.S. 604 113 S.Ct. 1701 123 L.Ed.2d 338 HAZEN PAPER COMPANY, et al., Petitioners,v.Walter F. BIGGINS. No. 91-1600. Argued Jan. 13, 1993. Decided April 20, Syllabus * Petitioners fired respondent Biggins when he was 62 years old and apparently a few weeks short of the service needed for his pension to vest. In ensuing lawsuit, jury found, inter alia, willful violation Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), which gave rise liquidated damages. The District Court granted petitioners' motion judgment notwithstanding verdict on "willfulness" finding, but Appeals reversed, giving considerable emphasis evidence interference upholding ADEA liability finding that conduct because, under standard Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 111, 128, 105 613, 625, 83 523, they knew or showed reckless disregard matter whether their contravened ADEA. Held: 1. An employer does not violate by interfering with an older employee's benefits would have vested virtue service. disparate treatment case, depends protected trait ADEA, age—actually motivated employer's decision. When decision is wholly factors other than age, problem prompted ADEA's passage—inaccurate stigmatizing stereotypes about workers' productivity competence—disappears. Thus, it be incorrect say based service—which analytically distinct from age—is necessarily age-based. None this Court's prior decisions should read mean violates whenever its reason firing employee improper any respect. foregoing holding preclude possibility where uses status as proxy dual Employee Retirement Income Security 1974 vesting age rather Because cited additional evidentiary support liability, case remanded court reconsider had sufficient find such liability. Pp. ____. 2. Thurston "knowledge disregard" damages applies only predicate formal, facially discriminatory policy, also informal age. persuaded wrongly decided part rule stare decisis. Applying cases individual discrimination will defeat two-tiered system intended Congress. Since affords "bona fide occupational qualification" defense, exempts certain subject matters persons, could incorrectly good faith nonrecklessly believe statute permits particular age-based Nor there some inherent difference between cause shift meaning word "willful." distinction publicized policy undisclosed factor here difference, since reluctance acknowledge reliance forbidden cut against imposing penalty. Once "willful" has been shown, need additionally demonstrate outrageous, provide direct motivation, prove predominant determinative employment 953 F.2d 1405 (CA1 1992), vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. KENNEDY, filed concurring opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., THOMAS, joined. Robert B. Gordon, Boston, MA, petitioners. Maurice M. Cahillane, Jr., Springfield, respondent. John R. Dunne, amicus curiae special leave Justice O'CONNOR 1 we clarify standards 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 seq. 2 Petitioner Hazen Paper Company manufactures coated, laminated, printed paper paperboard. company owned operated two cousins, petitioners Thomas N. Hazen. Hazens hired Walter technical director 1977. They him 1986, old. 3 Respondent brought suit United States Massachusetts, alleging He claimed fire him. contested claim, asserting instead doing business competitors Paper. tried before jury, rendered claim found violations (ERISA), 88 895, 510, 1140, state law. On count, specifically "willfully" violated statute. Under 7(b) 626(b), gives 4 moved verdict. respect state-law otherwise denied it. appeal ensued. 1992). First Circuit affirmed both ERISA counts, reversed "willfulness." 5 affirming judgments relied heavily order prevent vesting. That evidence, construed most favorably court, plan 10-year period reached mark worked "a more weeks" after being fired. Id., at 1411. There testimony offered retain consultant Paper, capacity entitled receive benefits. 1412. id., 1416, After summarizing all tending show discrimination, stated: 6 "Based reasonably [respondent] rights used confidentiality agreement [that asked sign] means end. inextricably intertwined [respondent]. If were [respondent's] sixty-two, within hairbreadth [Respondent] fifty-two hired; ten years." 7 As issue adopted applied definition set out 523 (1985). held airline's job-transfer because airline neither "knew [nor] whether" S.Ct., 625 (internal quotation marks omitted). satisfy standard, ordered awarded equal addition underlying $419,454.38. F.2d, 1415-1416. 8 We certiorari decide questions. 505 ----, 112 2990, 120 868 (1992). First, ADEA? Second, apply age? II A. 9 courts appeals repeatedly faced question acting basis factor, seniority, empirically correlated Compare White Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 56, (CA3 1988) (firing ADEA); Metz Transit Mix, Inc., 828 1202 (CA7 1987) save salary costs resulting seniority ADEA) Williams General Motors Corp., 656 120, 130, n. 17 (CA5 1981) ("[S]eniority are unrelated. . without equivocation given plaintiff accumulated entitles no better worse suit."), cert. denied, 455 943, 102 1439, 71 655 (1982); EEOC Clay Printing 955 936, 942 (CA4 1992) (emphasizing service). now motivating feature 10 long distinguished "disparate treatment" impact" theories discrimination. 11 " 'Disparate treatment' easily understood type simply treats people less others race, color, religion [or characteristics.] Proof motive critical, although can situations inferred mere fact differences treatment. 12 "[C]laims stress 'disparate impact' [by contrast] involve practices neutral different groups fall harshly one group another cannot justified necessity. required disparate-impact theory." Teamsters States, 431 324, 335, 15, 97 ,S.Ct. 1843, 1855, 52 396 (1977) (citation omitted) (construing Title VII Civil Rights 1964). 13 theory course available language makes clear. "It shall unlawful fail refuse hire discharge wise discriminate compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment, individual's age." 623(a)(1) (emphasis added). See supra, U.S., 120-125, 621-624 (affirming theory). By contrast, never impact see Markham Geller, 451 945, 101 2028, 68 332 (1981) (Rehnquist, dissenting denial certiorari), do so here. claims received 14 (under age) actually See, e.g., Postal Service Bd. Governors Aikens, 460 711, 103 1478, 75 403 (1983); Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 252-256, 1089, 1093-1095, 67 207 (1981); Furnco Construction Corp. Waters, 438 567, 576-578, 98 2943, 2949-2950, 57 957 (1978). may upon requiring adverse employees trait. supra; Los Angeles Water & Power Manhart, 435 702, 704-718, 1370, 1373-1380, 55 657 Or ad hoc, basis. Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 1504, 84 518 (1985); Teamsters, 334-343, 1854-1859. Whatever decisionmaking process, succeed unless played role process influence outcome. 15 Disparate treatment, thus defined, captures essence what Congress sought prohibit It very believes competence decline explained Wyoming, 226, 1054, 18 (1983), Congress' promulgation concern workers deprived inaccurate stereotypes. 16 "Although rarely sort animus forms large unsupported objective fact. Moreover, empirical demonstrated arbitrary lines generally unfounded that, overall matter, performance least younger workers." 231, 1057-1058. Thus commands "employers evaluate [older] merits Western Air Lines, Criswell, 472 400, 422, 2743, 2756, 86 321 rely remaining characteristics, productivity, must focus those directly. disappears. This true even if typically is. Pension plans accrued become nonforfeitable, "vested," once completes number employer. J. Mamorsky, Benefits Law 5.03 average, work force employee, well Yet who 40, therefore outside class defined 631(a), entire career, while worker newly hired. distinct, take account ignoring other, "age-based." 19 instant illustrative. plan, Appeals, vest company. Perhaps likely "close vesting" employees. solely nine-plus constitute prohibited stereotype ("Older ___") figured decision, attendant stigma ensue. result denigrating generalization represent accurate employee—that indeed vesting." 20 suggest lawfully Such actionable 510 ERISA, rightly Ingersoll-Rand Co. McClendon, 498 133, 142-143, 111 478, 484-485, 474 (1990). But not, more, law requires ignore (absent statutory exemption defense); specify further characteristics ignore. Although our might respect, McDonnell Douglas Green, 411 792, 802, 93 1817, 1824, 36 668 (1973) (creating proof frame applicable (employer "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" action employee), reading obviously incorrect. For example, fires black thereby race reason, VII, 21 targets assumption these engages sense equivalent, cf. Metz, 1208 (using "proxy" equivalence), suppose correlation act accordingly. status. Finally, consider service, 5.02[2], presented Our just 22 Besides interference, except isolated comments Hazens, did note following indirect evidence: sign agreement, though so, replacement man onerous agreement. ordinary kind suffice shows explanation decision—here, disloyal competitors—is 'unworthy credence.' 716, 1482 (quoting 256, 1095). inferring age-motivation implausibility problematic unsavory motives, present. us context, Hicks St. Mary's Honor Center, 970 487 (CA8 granted, 506 954, 122 (1993), address prematurely. remand violation. B 23 proceedings, second granted: provides 24 thoroughly analyzed concluded [would be] 'willful' ADEA." 126, 624 ellipsis sifted through legislative history 7(b), derived 16(a) Fair Labor Standards (FLSA), 1069, 216(a), determined accepted judicial interpretation time passage supported standard. 624. consistent criminal civil statutes. 126-127, 624-625. observed aimed create "two-tiered scheme," give rejected broader providing "in picture." 127-128, 25 McLaughlin Richland Shoe 486 108 1677, 100 115 (1988), FLSA reaffirmed limitations provision FLSA, creating 3-year violations, interpreted consistently Thurston. answered affirmative. 26 "The widely law, and, perfectly interpretation, refer merely negligent. willfulness Thurston—that either statute—is surely fair plain Act." 1681. 27 again picture standard" "virtually obliterat[e] nonwillful violations." 132-133, 1680-1681. 28 Surprisingly, continue confused term A circuits declined called case—where entered into formal policy. At circuit refuses impose "outrageous." Lockhart Credit 879 43, 57-58 1989). Another circumstantial. Neufeld Searle Laboratories, 884 340 Still insisted "predominant" factor. Spulak K Mart 894 1150, 1159 (CA10 1990); Schrand Federal Pacific Elec. 851 152, 158 (CA6 1988). chief application Congress, every knows recklessly disregards illegality conduct. misplaced. "where principle scheme." overrule 30 first possibility, decided, let alone depart interpretive tool among several meant "willful," event tiers across range cases. knowingly relies reaching invariably commits knowing unqualified prohibition use decisions, 623(f)(1), see, 623(f)(2) (exemption bona systems benefit plans); 631(c) executives high policymakers). then imposed. Shoe, 135, 1682, 13. Indeed, itself upheld award "acted [nonrecklessly] attempting determine [its] 129, 625. 31 how assuming existence hoc basis, alleges occurred circular self-defeating hold illegal, knowledge reaffirm "willful"—that 32 proceedings opinion. 33 So ordered. 34 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring. 35 I agree placed respondent's determining announced (1985), acts manifested company-wide write underscore seq., asserted litigation discriminated advanced practice disproportionate effect App. 29-30 (amended complaint); Record 71-76 (jury instructions). result, nothing incorporating context so-called 1964, 42 §§ 2000e 2000e-17. acknowledges, ante, 5, yet addressed cognizable substantial arguments carry over analysis certiorari); 1202, 1216-1220 (Easterbrook, dissenting); Note, Impact Doctrine, Stan.L.Rev. 837 (1982). understanding reach join NOTE: Where feasible, syllabus (headnote) released, done connection issued. constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Classification Label: 1