Smith v. City of Jackson
Citation: 544 U.S. 228 (2005) Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
The City of Jackson, Mississippi implemented a pay plan that granted larger raises to police officers and dispatchers with fewer than five years of experience, in order to bring their salaries in line with regional market rates. Older officers with more seniority received smaller percentage raises. A group of older officers sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging that the pay plan had a disparate impact on workers over forty.
Issue
Whether the ADEA, like Title VII, permits disparate impact claims, and if so, what affirmative defenses are available to employers.
Holding
The Supreme Court (plurality) held that the ADEA does permit disparate impact claims, based on the parallel statutory text to Title VII and the EEOC’s longstanding interpretation. However, the ADEA’s “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) affirmative defense is broader than Title VII’s corresponding defense, and the pay plan’s use of market rates and seniority was a reasonable factor other than age sufficient to defeat the claim.
Rule / Doctrine
The ADEA permits disparate impact liability, but the scope is narrower than under Title VII. The RFOA affirmative defense — available when the challenged practice is based on a reasonable factor other than age — imposes a less demanding standard on employers than the corresponding “business necessity” defense under Title VII. Additionally, plaintiffs must identify a specific, discrete employment practice causing the disparity; they cannot attack an entire decisionmaking process in the aggregate.
Significance
Smith v. City of Jackson resolved the longstanding circuit split over whether the ADEA permits disparate impact claims, holding it does — but with less potent plaintiff-side tools than Title VII. The case is significant for comparative statutory interpretation: the Court read similar text in ADEA and Title VII differently based on textual and structural differences (the RFOA provision appears in the ADEA but has no direct analog in Title VII). Contrast with Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), which established disparate impact under Title VII.