The Supreme Court held that the ADEA covers discrimination because of an individual’s age that helps younger workers by hurting older workers. It is not designed to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. The ADEA’s restriction of the protected class to those 40 and above confirms this interpretation. If Congress had been worrying about protecting younger workers against older workers, it would not have ignored everyone under 40.
The text, structure and history of the ADEA legislation point to it as a remedy for unfair preference based on relative youth, leaving complaints of the relatively young beyond the ambit of the ADEA.
The Court refused to show deference to the EEOC’s contrary reading of the ADEA, “ Because the EEOC is clearly wrong.” The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that “the text, structure, purpose, and history of the ADEA, along with its relationship to other federal statutes,” shows that the ADEA “does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one.”
Related posts: