ecmlpkdd2009.org

With health care costs and premiums skyrocketing, many employers are scaling back their health insurance coverage for retirees or eliminating it entirely. In a major victory for employers, the Supreme Court ruled that a collectively bar-gained agreement that cut off retiree health benefits for workers under age 50, but keptthem for those over that age, did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).7 (The Court essentially concluded that reverse discrimination is not prohibited by the ADEA.)
Background. In 1997, General Dynamics and the United Auto Workers (UAW) signed a collective-bargaining agreement that eliminated the company’s obligation to provide health benefits to subsequently retired employees, except for then-current workers who were at least 50 years old. Dennis Cline, who was age 40 at the time, along with other, similarly situated employees, made a claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the agreement violated the ADEA because it discriminated against them. (The ADEA does not protect workers under age 40.) The EEOC agreed with Cline, and invited the company and the union to settle informally with Cline. When they failed, Cline went to court. A district court dismissed his suit, saying that Cline’s claim was essentially one of “reverse age discrimination,” and ruling that the ADEA does not protect younger workers against older workers. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re-versed, reasoning that the prohibition of discrimination was so clear on its face that if Congress had meant to limit its coverage to protect only the older worker against the younger worker, it would have said so.