Age Discrimination Law Protects Applicants, Not Just Employees: US Appeals Court
Dale Kleber's lawsuit in Illinois tested the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Kleber, a lawyer, sued CareFusion Corp. after he was rejected for an in-house counsel post. The Seventh Circuit on Thursday revived his claims.
April 26, 2018 at 06:40 PM
5 minute read
Job applicants, and not just current employees, can sue employers for alleged age discrimination, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday, splitting from another court and highlighting tension within the aging workforce.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said Dale Kleber, the applicant and a longtime attorney, can sue prospective employer CareFusion Corp. for alleged age discrimination. The company did not hire Kleber, who had 25 years of legal and business experience, for a senior counsel position that included a seven-year experience cap. Kleber's lawsuit tested the scope of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, which prohibits discrimination against older workers.
“The central issue in this appeal is whether the disparate impact provision protects only current employees or whether it protects current employees and outside job applicants. We hold that it protects both outside job applicants and current employees,” Judge David Hamilton wrote for the majority. “That is the better reading of the statutory text. It is also more consistent with the purpose of the act and nearly 50 years of case law interpreting the ADEA and similar language in other employment discrimination statutes.”
Writing in dissent, Judge William Bauer said the court went too far in extending liability to job applicants, beyond what Congress considered in adopting the ADEA. “While the judicial branch is afforded the duty of determining the constitutionality of statutes enacted by Congress, we are not afforded the right to pencil in words Congress does not itself include,” Bauer wrote.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The Eleventh Circuit in 2016, ruling in favor of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., concluded that job seekers do not have a right to sue would-be employers under federal age discrimination laws. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear that case. No other circuit courts have directly addressed the issue, said Dara Smith, senior attorney with AARP Foundation, which took on Kleber's case.
“We are very pleased by the Seventh Circuit's decision. It upholds the letter and the spirit of the ADEA by preserving the full range of protections Congress intended for older job applicants facing numerous barriers to finding work,” Smith said in a statement Thursday.
Tobias Schlueter of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, a lawyer for CareFusion, was not reached for comment Thursday. The New Jersey-based medical technology company Becton, Dickinson and Co. acquired CareFusion in 2015.
The ADAE is distinct from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which defines protections for current and prospective workers regarding sex, race, religion and national origin from discrimination.
Then 59 years old, Kleber, an Illinois resident, sued CareFusion in 2015 after the company gave the position to a 29-year-old. His complaint alleged he was not contacted for an interview. At the heart of the lawsuit was the wording for “seven-year” experience cap. A trial judge ruled against Kleber; the appeals court Thursday reversed.
CareFusion's lawyers have argued that the in-house counsel post was an “entry-level position that would have less complex job duties” and be under the supervision of a higher-level attorney. “Although Kleber had more than 25 years of legal experience at the time, he chose to apply for the position,” Ogletree's Schlueter wrote in CareFusion's brief last year in the Seventh Circuit.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief backing CareFusion in the appeal. The Chamber's lawyer at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld said Congress intentionally chose to create narrow liability under the ADEA.
“Policies that give rise to disparate impact liability, by definition, are neutral on their face and often supported by valid business judgments having nothing to do with a protected trait,” the Chamber's lawyers wrote. “These policies, unlike acts of intentional discrimination, are not inherently suspect.”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and worker-friendly advocates have trained a new focus in recent years on the employment practices that can weed out older workers on the front-end. These include online applications that include required graduate dates, campus recruiting and maximum years of experience. Another case is pending in a California federal court against PriceWaterhouseCoopers that targets certain campus recruiting tactics.
The number of age discrimination claims is expected to rise, with 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, according to a 2010 Pew Research Center report. As of 2015, about 33 million Americans over age 55 were in the workforce, and that demographic is expected to make up a quarter of the entire U.S. labor force by 2019.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided 5th Circuit Shoots Down Nasdaq Diversity Rules
Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250