Minnesota Law Review

Note, The Curious Case of Disparate Impact Under the ADEA: Reversing the Theory’s Development into Obsolescence

The present state of the economy places the nation’s older worker in a perilous situation. Employers, motivated by either the appearance of economic incentives or age-related stereotypes, are apt to seek savings in cost via large-scale reductions-in-force. The factors relied upon in executing these internal restructurings often serve as functional proxies for age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provides relief for the victims of such discriminatory practices under the theory of disparate impact. Unfortunately, however, the standard currently employed by courts in evaluating these claims makes the prospects for recovery highly unlikely.

This Note argues that a balancing approach should replace the existing level of deference afforded to employers under the reasonable factor other than age (RFOA) defense. Beginning with an overview of the history of disparate impact under the ADEA, this Note observes that the present minimal threshold for invoking the RFOA defense results in a practical impossibility for recovery. It argues that the current standard is ill-equipped to address both the economic situation faced by older workers, as well as the psychological nature of age discrimination itself. It proposes that a familiar standard in tort liability, Judge Hand’s B < PL formula, should instead provide the normative model for balancing the interests necessary to determine the “reasonableness” of an employer’s reliance upon a factor other than age. It concludes that such an approach would be more consistent with the fundamental premise of antidiscrimination law as a form of tort liability, coincide with a modern understanding of age discrimination’s operation at an implicit level, and address the urgent economic concerns facing older workers.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]