Court Opinion

ID: 9497544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:53:43.323761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:15.454857
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s decision to vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab. But I dissent from the majority’s denial of summary judgment to plaintiff David Enlow. The majority have bought Yellow Cab’s implosive position that when it purchased a new insurance policy that reduced its premium payments by more than $10,000 per year, it did not know the terms or conditions of the new policy or *816why it was so much less expensive than its old policy. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not protect an employer whose deliberate indifference toward its business policies leads it to terminate employees in violation of the ADEA.
Additionally, the majority have bought another implosive belief that the ADEA does not apply when an employee covered under the ADEA is discharged only temporarily for economic reasons. Temporary termination is not a defense under the ADEA; it qualifies under neither the bona-fide-occupational-qualification (“BFOQ”) exception nor the reasonable-factor-other than-age (“RFOA”) exception to the ADEA. Whether the termination was temporary or permanent will have an effect on the amount of damages eventually awarded but is not a factor in determining liability.
The uncontested facts establish a violation of the ADEA. Mr. Enlow, a 72-year-old cabdriver, was discharged from Yellow Cab because the company’s new insurance policy did not cover drivers over 70. The majority remands this case to district court to determine whether Yellow Cab terminated Mr. Enlow temporarily on the basis of an ADEA exception. Yet it makes no difference regarding liability for discrimination whether the termination was permanent or temporary. The only question to be resolved is whether, as a matter of law, the ADEA is violated where an employer terminates a 72-year-old employee because the company’s chosen insurance policy does not cover drivers over 70.
The answer to that question is without question. Where an employer intentionally uses age as a criterion for an employment decision, it is not a defense that the employer sought only to save costs. Nor can the employer escape liability by claiming that exigent circumstances excused its actions. The ADEA prohibited age discrimination while carefully enumerating several exceptions to the rule. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(f). None of these exceptions applies here. The majority’s implicit creation of a new exception for age discrimination taken to reduce insurance costs dilutes the protections that Congress sought to provide for older workers.
I.
Yellow Cab contends that Mr. Enlow did not establish the discriminatory intent required for an ADEA disparate treatment claim, as described by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993). In that case, the Supreme Court held that an employer does not violate the ADEA by terminating an older employee in order to prevent his pension benefits from vesting, even if pension status is correlated with age. Id. at 611-12, 113 S.Ct. 1701. The Court reasoned that age and pension status are “analytically distinct” and noted that a younger employee who has worked for a particular employer his entire career might be closer to qualifying for pension benefits than an older employee newly hired. Id. at 611, 113 S.Ct. 1701.
Yellow Cab claims that here, too, it discharged Mr. Enlow based on a classification — insurability—that is analytically distinct from age. Unlike the situation in Hazen, however, there is not merely a correlation between age and qualification for insurance coverage, but absolute identification: Mr. Enlow did not qualify for Yellow Cab’s new insurance policy because he was over 70, and as a result, the company fired him. The cab company acknowledged that but for Mr. Enlow’s age, he would not have been discharged. Thus, Mr. Enlow meets Hazen’s requirement that an employee show that age “actually *817played a role in [the employer’s decision-making] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.” 507 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701.
Yellow Cab’s attempt to separate out insurability from age is unavailing. In City of Los Angeles Dep’t. of Water & Power v. Manhart, the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s argument that a plan requiring women to make larger monthly contributions to a pension plan than men was “based on the factor of longevity rather than sex.” 435 U.S. 702, 712, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978). The Court stated: “It is plain ... that any individual’s life expectancy is based on a number of factors, of which sex is only one.... [0]ne cannot say that an actuarial distinction based entirely on sex is based on any other factor other than sex. Sex is exactly what it is based on.” Id. at 712-13, 98 S.Ct. 1370(internal citations omitted). Here, too, an individual’s insurance risk is based on numerous factors, but Mr. Enlow’s inability to qualify for insurance coverage was based solely on age. The cab company cannot splice out insurability from age where, as in Manhart, the proffered basis for its employment practice coincides absolutely with a protected trait.
Nor can Yellow Cab escape liability by shifting blame to the insurance carrier that established the coverage limits. The Supreme Court held more than twenty years ago that an employer violated Title VII where the retirement plans offered to its employees provided lower monthly benefits to women, even though the discriminatory conditions were supplied by private insurers. Ariz. Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Comp. Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 103 S.Ct. 3492, 77 L.Ed.2d 1236 (1983). The employer “cannot disclaim responsibility for the discriminatory features of the insurers’ options” and violates Title VII “regardless of whether third parties are also involved in the discrimination.” Id. at 1089, 103 S.Ct. 3492. Here, too, Yellow Cab is no less responsible for violating the ADEA because it did so in response to an insurance policy that it selected from a third party.
Furthermore, even assuming that the company was not motivated by stigmatizing stereotypes of older workers, Yellow Cab has violated the ADEA. Hazen explains that “[i]t is the very essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence decline with old age.” 507 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701. Congress enacted the ADEA in order to address the concern that “older workers were being deprived of employment on the basis of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes.” Id. Hazen further stated that where an employer’s decision is “wholly motivated by factors other than age,” the problem presented by such stereotyping “disappears.” Id. at 611, 113 S.Ct. 1701(emphasis added).
This interpretation of the ADEA’s rationale, however, does not shield Yellow Cab. The majority believes that to establish disparate treatment, Mr. Enlow must still persuade a trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that Yellow Cab’s motive in terminating him was intentionally discriminatory. But precedent is clear that in a case of facial discrimination, the explicit use of a protected trait as a criterion for the employer’s action establishes discriminatory intent, regardless of the employer’s subjective motivations. “Whether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination.” Int’l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 *818L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (finding an employer’s fetal-protection policy to be sex discrimination in violation of Title VII where it excluded women of child-bearing capacity from jobs exposing them to lead). There, the Supreme Court noted that “the absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy....” Id. See also Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 854 (9th Cir.2000) (reaffirming that “where a claim of discriminatory treatment is based upon a policy which on its face applies less favorably to one gender ... a plaintiff need not otherwise establish the presence of discriminatory intent”).
This Court has applied the principle, first established in Title VII cases, that an employer’s subjective motivations are not controlling in a case of facial discrimination to claims under the ADEA. In EEOC v. Borden’s, Inc., for example, we stated that where a severance policy denied a benefit to workers 55 and older, no showing of the employer’s ill will toward older people was required.1 724 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th Cir.1984), overruled on other grounds in Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989), superseded by revision to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, 623.
Indeed, there is good reason to find discriminatory intent where an employer’s decision or policy discriminates on its face: where differential treatment based on a protected trait is open and explicit, older workers are stigmatized on account of their age regardless of the employer’s subjective motivations. Moreover, although there is no evidence that Yellow Cab itself espoused stereotypes of older workers, by dismissing Mr. Enlow because of an insurance policy that did not cover drivers over 70, Yellow Cab ratified the insurance company’s categorical judgment that drivers over 70 were not competent.
Whatever the rights of the insurance business to set coverage limits as it deems appropriate, Yellow Cab’s termination of an older employee based on the new policy’s age exclusion implicated the stigmatizing stereotypes to which Hazen refers. Mr. Enlow’s dismissal falls squarely within the range of discriminatory employment actions that the ADEA sought to prevent.
II.
Although Mr. Enlow’s dismissal constitutes facial discrimination under the ADEA, the majority believes that Yellow Cab’s decision to terminate Mr. Enlow potentially falls within an established ADEA exception. In particular, the majority suggests that Yellow Cab qualifies for a BFOQ or a RFOA exception to the ADEA, both of which insulate a defendant from liability for discrimination. The majority, however, misconstrues both ADEA exceptions: discharging an employee, even if only temporarily, to save costs never justifies age-based discrimination under any exception.
A. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (‘BFOQ”) Exception
As a preliminary matter, the affirmative BFOQ defense set forth in § 4(f)(1) of the ADEA is inapplicable in this case because Yellow Cab failed to raise it in its motion *819for summary judgment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly described the BFOQ defense as an affirmative defense, Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. at 206, 111 S.Ct. 1196, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 112, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires to be specifically pleaded. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). Failure to plead an affirmative defense therefore results in a waiver of that defense. See Bank Leumi Le-Israel, B.M. v. Lee, 928 F.2d 232, 235 (7th Cir.1991). Since Yellow Cab did not specifically plead the BFOQ defense in its motion for summary judgment, Yellow Cab effectively waived this defense.
More importantly, even if Yellow Cab were permitted to raise the BFOQ defense in district court, the defense would nonetheless fail as a matter of law. The majority believes that to establish a BFOQ defense, Yellow Cab need only prove that it terminated Mr. Enlow temporarily and not in bad faith. The majority repeatedly states that according to Yellow Cab, the termination of Mr. Enlow was to be temporary. The opinion does not explain, however, why this would make a difference. The ADEA prohibits age discrimination “with respect to ... compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment ... ”. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). It does not only prohibit “permanent” termination. Thus, although this fact is contested, it is not a material fact requiring us to remand the case.
The Supreme Court has established that the BFOQ defense is a narrow exception to the ADEA that only applies in special situations. See Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. at 201, 111 S.Ct. 1196; Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 412, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 334, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977). In particular, the BFOQ defense applies only in situations where an employer who discriminates on the basis of age demonstrates that “age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). Thus, one of the elements that a defendant invoking the BFOQ defense must satisfy is that its age-based discrimination relates to a “particular business,” which the Supreme Court defined in Thurston as the particular job from which the protected individual is excluded. 469 U.S. at 122, 105 S.Ct. 613.
In Thurston, more specifically, the Supreme Court held that Trans World Airlines’ (“TWA’s”) discriminatory transfer policy was not permissible under § 4(f)(1) because age is not a BFOQ for the “particular” position of flight engineer. Id. The transfer policy explicitly allowed airplane captains displaced for reasons other than age to “bump” less senior flight engineers. Id. Those captains disqualified from their position after reaching the age of 60, however, were denied the transfer privilege altogether because of their age. Id. The Court determined that a BFOQ defense was meritless because age is not a BFOQ for the position of flight engineer. Id. at 123, 105 S.Ct. 613. TWA had actually employed at least 148 flight engineers who were over 60 years old, thereby defeating the contention that captains over 60 years old were too old or incapable of performing as flight engineers. Id. n. 18.
Here, too, Yellow Cab’s discriminatory insurance policy is not permissible under § 4(f)(1) because age is not a BFOQ for the particular position of cab driver. Yellow Cab’s own pleadings acknowledge that Mr. Enlow, a nineteen-year employee of the company, maintained a solid job performance. In addition, Yellow Cab’s supplemental brief to this Court reiterated that the cab company did not consider Mr. *820Enlow to be an unsafe driver. Accordingly, Mr. Enlow’s age did not affect his ability to carry out his duties for Yellow Cab; he was neither incapable of performing his job, see Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. at 201, 111 S.Ct. 1196 (explaining that an age-based BFOQ defense must relate to the employee’s occupation, including his ability to do the job) (emphasis added), nor a potential safety risk, see Criswell, 472 U.S. at 419, 105 S.Ct. 2743 (finding that an age-based BFOQ purportedly justified by safety interests must be “reasonably necessary” to the overriding interest in public safety). Thus, Mr. Enlow’s dismissal, despite his continued ability, violated the “particular business” requirement of the BFOQ defense.
Furthermore, we have refused to consider economic costs as a basis for a BFOQ defense. The majority opinion recites at length Yellow Cab’s claim that it laid off Mr. Enlow solely for the time necessary for Yellow Cab both to avoid termination of its business license and to negotiate with Star Insurance to waive the age exclusion provisions in its policy. In EEOC v. County of Los Angeles, 706 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1983), however, we stated that “[ejconomic considerations ... [could not] be the basis for a BFOQ — precisely those considerations were among the targets of the Act.”2 As a result, it is irrelevant whether Yellow Cab terminated Mr. Enlow temporarily or because it failed to exercise rational business judgment in purchasing an insurance policy the terms and conditions of which it did not know.
In an effort to save costs, Yellow Cab ultimately adopted a new insurance policy that did not cover drivers over 70, and, consequently, discriminated against Mr. Enlow. Even though Yellow Cab’s previous insurance policy covered drivers over 70, Yellow Cab nonetheless chose a new policy that effectively saved the company $10,000 in annual insurance premiums. But Yellow Cab made this business decision at Mr. Enlow’s discriminatory expense. An employer’s deliberate indifference toward a new discriminatory policy it chooses to adopt is therefore no excuse for age discrimination.
B. Reasonable Factors Other than Age (“RFOA”) Exception
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, *821the 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).
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.
III.
Mr. Enlow’s claim of age discrimination should be granted on summary judgment. There are no material facts for a trier of fact to determine. As a matter of law, the termination of an employee because he is older than the age limitation of his employer’s insurance policy violates the ADEA, even if the employer chose that policy to save money. Had Yellow Cab terminated a female employee because its insurance policy did not cover women, or discharged an Asian employee because its insurance excluded Asians, we would surely have repudiated those actions. As certainly, Yellow Cab’s decision to terminate a 72-year-old cabdriver because its new insurance excluded drivers over 70 deserves our censure. Anti-discrimination law would mean nothing if an employer could justify a facially discriminatory action by invoking the bottom line of its profit and loss statement.

. Borden’s held that a policy that denied severance pay only to employees who were eligible for retirement constituted disparate treatment. 724 F.2d at 1393. While that holding may not survive Hazen, the Bordens analysis of the intent required in facial discrimination cases is still apt. Moreover, in a case decided after Hazen, the Third Circuit found a separate inquiry into an employer's subjective motivations unnecessary in a case of facial age discrimination. See DiBiase v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 48 F.3d 719, 726 (3d Cir.1995).

. Other circuits agree that economic considerations, unlike job-related safety concerns, are not a basis for the BFOQ defense. See Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State Coll., 702 F.2d 686, 692 (8th Cir.1983) (stating that "economic savings derived from discharging older employees cannot serve as legitimate justification under the ADEA for an employment selection, criterion”); Smallwood v. United Air Lines, Inc., 661 F.2d 303, 307 (4th Cir.1981) (holding that the economic burdens involved in hiring older pilots was not grounds for a BFOQ exception that justified United Airlines' age-based discrimination policy against hiring older pilots).