A Legal Boost for Senior Workers

As aging baby boomers face unprecedented job upheavals, the Supreme Court has strengthened the federal law that protects older workers from unfair dismissals. The court ruled on Monday that an older worker has the basis for an age bias suit even if he or she is replaced by someone older than 40. The ruling, coming amid the downsizing of corporate America, means that more older workers may challenge their dismissals based on age discrimination. But proving a case will not be any easier under the new ruling.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects workers aged 40 or older. Courts had ruled in the past that to constitute age discrimination, workers had to be replaced by someone outside the protected class--that is, under 40.

That standard was applied to the case brought before the Supreme Court by James O’Connor of North Carolina. The 56-year-old vending machine salesman was replaced by a 40-year-old after his boss told him he was “too damn old for this kind of work.” Two lower courts had dismissed his lawsuit before trial because the replacement worker was considered a member of a protected class. “The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is...irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 9-0 decision. The court said the replacement must be “substantially younger” but did not define how much of an age difference was necessary to constitute a presumption of discrimination.

Under federal law, employers can replace high-cost workers for economic reasons but not simply to get a younger force. When does acceptable cost cutting cross over the line into illegal age bias? Many victims of a tight labor market are asking themselves that. At least the court has turned thumbs down on using middle-aged workers as a tool to discriminate against older workers.