544 U.S. 228 (2005)
Petitioners are a group of police and public safety officers employed by the city of Jackson, Mississippi.1 On October 1, 1998, the City adopted a pay plan granting raises to all City employees.2 The stated purpose of the plan was to attract and retain qualified people, provide incentive for performance, maintain competitiveness with other public sector agencies and ensure equitable compensation to all employees regardless of age, sex, race and/or disability.3
On May 1, 1999, a revision of the plan, motivated at least in part by the City's desire to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to the regional average, granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers.4 Those who had less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises when compared to their former pay than those with more seniority.5 Although some officers over the age of 40 had less than five years of service, most of the older officers had more.6
Petitioners filed suit under the ADEA claiming both that the City deliberately discriminated against them because of their age and that they were adversely affected by the plan because of their age.7 The District Court granted summary judgment to the City on both claims.8 The Court of Appeals held that the ruling on the former claim was premature because petitioners were entitled to further discovery on the issue of intent, but it affirmed the dismissal of the disparate-impact claim.9
The Supreme Court granted the officers' petition for certiorari.10
Whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 authorizes recovery on a disparate-impact theory of liability?11
The ADEA authorizes recovery on a disparate-impact theory.12 Section 623(a)(2) of the ADEA uses language identical to that in Title VII's section 703(a)(2).13 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. interpreted that language to focus on the effects of employment practices rather than employer motivation.14 The RFOA provision in section 4(f)(1) confirms this framework. It precludes liability only when the adverse impact stems from reasonable factors other than age.15
Yes. Petitioners are a group of police and public safety officers employed by the city of Jackson, Mississippi. On October 1, 1998, the City adopted a pay plan granting raises to all City employees with the stated purpose to attract and retain qualified people and ensure equitable compensation regardless of age.16 On May 1, 1999, a revision of the plan motivated by the desire to bring starting salaries of police officers up to the regional average granted raises to all police officers and dispatchers.17
Those having less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises.18 Although some officers over 40 had less than five years service, most older officers had more seniority.19 Petitioners filed suit under the ADEA claiming both deliberate discrimination and that they were adversely affected by the plan because of their age.20 The District Court granted summary judgment to the City.21
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the disparate-impact claim.22 The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The statutory text focuses on effects rather than motivation.23 The pay plan revision produced smaller percentage increases for most officers over 40 due to their greater seniority.24
This parallels the Griggs prohibition on practices that operate as built-in headwinds unrelated to job capability.25
The ADEA does authorize recovery on a disparate-impact theory of liability.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia concurs in the judgment but would resolve the question by deferring to the EEOC's reasonable interpretation under Chevron rather than through independent judicial construction.27 The EEOC regulation states that an employment practice claimed as a factor other than age that has an adverse impact on the protected group can only be justified as a business necessity.28 This regulation was promulgated after notice-and-comment rulemaking.29
It is consistent with the agency's longstanding position.30 The regulation directly addresses whether the ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims.31 It merits deference because the ADEA expressly grants the EEOC authority to issue rules for carrying out the statute.32
Joined by Kennedy, J., And Thomas, J.
Justice O'Connor concurs in the judgment on other grounds but maintains that the ADEA does not authorize disparate-impact claims at all.33 She reads both paragraphs of section 4(a) to require proof of discriminatory intent.34 The phrase because of such individual's age refers to the employer's motive, not the cause of an adverse effect.35
The RFOA provision functions as a safe harbor only in intentional discrimination cases.36 It allows employers to rebut a prima facie showing with evidence of a reasonable non-age factor.37 The legislative history drawn from the Wirtz Report confirms Congress intended to address only arbitrary disparate treatment.38
It handles disparate-impact problems through noncoercive measures.39
Whether petitioners identified a specific employment practice within the City's pay plan that caused a disparate impact on older workers?40
A plaintiff asserting a disparate-impact claim must isolate and identify the specific employment practice allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities. This requirement comes from Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio. A plaintiff may not merely point to a generalized policy or overall plan.41
No. Petitioners did little more than point out that the pay plan was relatively less generous to older workers than to younger workers. They failed to identify any specific test, requirement, or practice within the plan that produced the disparity. Their evidence showed only that almost two-thirds of officers under 40 received raises over 10 percent while less than half of those over 40 did. The average percentage increase was higher for officers with less than five years of tenure.
They never isolated the particular step or mechanism within the multi-step pay structure that caused this result.42
Petitioners failed to identify a specific employment practice responsible for the disparate impact.43
Whether the City's pay plan was based on reasonable factors other than age?44
Under the ADEA's RFOA provision, liability is precluded if the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age. This includes reliance on seniority and position to achieve the legitimate goal of raising salaries to match those in surrounding communities. The inquiry applies even if other reasonable means of achieving the goal existed.45
Yes. The City's decision to grant larger raises to lower-echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with surrounding police forces was based on reasonable factors other than age. The plan assigned steps within each rank based on a survey of comparable communities. It gave each employee the lowest step that still produced a 2 percent raise.
The basic explanation for the differential was the need to raise junior officers' salaries to market levels. Reliance on seniority and rank is unquestionably reasonable given that goal. The reasonableness inquiry does not require proof that no other method would have avoided the impact.46
The City's pay plan was based on reasonable factors other than age.47