X hits on this document





2 / 3

decisionmaking process “are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i)).

Second, the Court held that the ADEA statutory authorization for an employer to rely on “reasonable factors” other than age imposes a lower standard than the “business necessity” test used in Title VII. Indeed, in Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, the Court found that an employer was entitled to summary judgment on claims that its pay increase plan had a disparate impact on employees older than 40 because the use of seniority and rank in order to raise employees’ salaries to make them competitive with surrounding communities was “reasonable.” The Court emphasized: “Unlike the business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement.”

On balance, the Smith decision provides greater protections for both employees (in those circuits which had rejected disparate impact claims) and employers, who benefit from the Court’s clearly holding that the use of “reasonable” factors other than age does not have to satisfy the business necessity test. However, there are substantial questions regarding the application and scope of the RFOA defense, including what criteria will be used to decide what factors other than age are reasonable.

While these uncertainties are being clarified by the federal courts, it is crucial for employers to take steps to protect their policies from disparate impact challenges. Existing policies should be evaluated to determine whether there is a risk of a disparate impact challenge, and, if there is, the reasons for adopting those policies should be reviewed. Before new policies are adopted, they should be evaluated for both their potential impact on older employees, and the business purposes for the policies should be documented.


Should you have additional questions regarding these topics, please contact any of the Bryan Cave employment lawyers listed on the following page.

For further information on this topic or other Labor and Employment issues, please contact us through the direct link to our Web site below. Bryan Cave LLP makes available the information and materials on its Web site for information purposes only. The information is general in nature and

does not constitute legal advice. information, does not create an

Further, the attorney-client

communication with Bryan Cave Labor &

us through this Web site Employment Practice


use of the site, and the sending or receipt of relationship between us. And, therefore, your not be considered as privileged or confidential.


Document info
Document views12
Page views12
Page last viewedFri Jan 06 16:08:15 UTC 2017