smith
et
al
city
jackson
mississippi
et
argued
november
decided
march
revising
employee
pay
plan
respondent
city
granted
raises
police
officers
police
dispatchers
attempt
bring
starting
salaries
regional
average
officers
less
five
years
service
received
proportionately
greater
raises
seniority
officers
five
years
service
petitioners
group
older
officers
filed
suit
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
claiming
inter
alia
adversely
affected
plan
age
district
granted
city
summary
judgment
affirming
fifth
circuit
ruled
claims
categorically
unavailable
adea
assumed
facts
alleged
petitioners
entitle
relief
griggs
duke
power
announced
theory
recovery
cases
brought
title
vii
civil
rights
act
title
vii
held
judgment
affirmed
affirmed
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
ii
iv
concluding
adea
authorizes
recovery
cases
comparable
griggs
except
substitution
age
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
language
adea
title
vii
identical
unlike
title
vii
however
adea
significantly
narrows
coverage
permitting
otherwise
prohibited
action
differentiation
based
reasonable
factors
age
hereinafter
rfoa
provision
pp
petitioners
set
forth
valid
claim
two
textual
differences
adea
title
vii
make
clear
theory
scope
narrower
adea
title
vii
one
rfoa
provision
amendment
title
vii
civil
right
act
modified
wards
cove
packing
atonio
holding
narrowly
construed
scope
liability
theory
relevant
amendments
expanded
title
vii
coverage
amend
adea
speak
age
discrimination
wards
cove
interpretation
title
vii
identical
language
remains
applicable
adea
congress
decision
limit
adea
coverage
including
rfoa
provision
consistent
fact
age
unlike
title
vii
protected
classifications
uncommonly
relevance
individual
capacity
engage
certain
types
employment
petitioners
done
little
point
pay
plan
relatively
less
generous
older
workers
younger
ones
required
wards
cove
identified
specific
test
requirement
practice
within
pay
plan
adverse
impact
older
workers
record
makes
clear
city
plan
based
reasonable
factors
age
city
explanation
differential
older
younger
workers
perceived
need
make
junior
officers
salaries
competitive
comparable
positions
market
thus
disparate
impact
attributable
city
decision
give
raises
based
seniority
position
reliance
factors
unquestionably
reasonable
given
city
goal
pp
justice
stevens
joined
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
concluded
part
iii
adea
text
rfoa
provision
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
regulations
support
conclusion
theory
cognizable
adea
pp
justice
scalia
concluded
reasoning
part
iii
justice
stevens
opinion
basis
deferring
pursuant
chevron
natural
resources
defense
council
eeoc
reasonable
view
adea
authorizes
claims
pp
justice
joined
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
concluded
judgment
affirmed
ground
disparate
impact
claims
cognizable
adea
pp
stevens
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
ii
iv
scalia
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
opinion
respect
part
iii
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
kennedy
thomas
joined
rehnquist
took
part
decision
case
azel
smith
et
petitioners
city
jackson
mississippi
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
march
justice
stevens
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
ii
iv
opinion
respect
part
iii
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
petitioners
police
public
safety
officers
employed
city
jackson
mississippi
hereinafter
city
contend
salary
increases
received
violated
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
less
generous
officers
age
younger
officers
suit
raises
question
whether
theory
recovery
announced
griggs
duke
power
cases
brought
title
vii
civil
rights
act
cognizable
adea
despite
age
adea
question
yet
addressed
see
hazen
paper
biggins
markham
geller
rehnquist
dissenting
denial
certiorari
october
city
adopted
pay
plan
granting
raises
city
employees
stated
purpose
plan
attract
retain
qualified
people
provide
incentive
performance
maintain
competitiveness
public
sector
agencies
ensure
equitable
compensation
employees
regardless
age
sex
race
disability
may
revision
plan
motivated
least
part
city
desire
bring
starting
salaries
police
officers
regional
average
granted
raises
police
officers
police
dispatchers
less
five
years
tenure
received
proportionately
greater
raises
compared
former
pay
seniority
although
officers
age
less
five
years
service
older
officers
petitioners
group
older
officers
filed
suit
adea
claiming
city
deliberately
discriminated
age
claim
adversely
affected
plan
age
claim
district
granted
summary
judgment
city
claims
appeals
held
ruling
former
claim
premature
petitioners
entitled
discovery
issue
intent
affirmed
dismissal
claim
one
judge
dissent
majority
concluded
claims
categorically
unavailable
adea
majority
dissent
assumed
facts
alleged
petitioners
entitle
relief
reasoning
griggs
granted
officers
petition
certiorari
hold
adea
authorize
recovery
cases
comparable
griggs
however
conclude
petitioners
set
forth
valid
claim
affirm
ii
deliberations
preceded
enactment
civil
rights
act
congress
considered
rejected
proposed
amendments
included
older
workers
among
classes
protected
employment
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
congress
however
request
secretary
labor
make
full
complete
study
factors
might
tend
result
discrimination
employment
age
consequences
discrimination
economy
individuals
affected
stat
secretary
report
submitted
response
congress
request
noted
little
discrimination
arising
dislike
intolerance
older
people
arbitrary
discrimination
result
certain
age
limits
report
secretary
labor
older
american
worker
age
discrimination
employment
june
reprinted
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
legislative
history
age
discrimination
employment
act
hereinafter
wirtz
report
moreover
report
observed
discriminatory
effects
resulted
nstitutional
arrangements
indirectly
restrict
employment
older
workers
response
report
congress
directed
secretary
propose
remedial
legislation
see
fair
labor
standards
amendments
pub
stat
acted
favorably
proposal
enacted
adea
codified
provided
shall
unlawful
employer
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
age
stat
except
substitution
word
age
words
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
language
provision
adea
identical
found
civil
rights
act
title
vii
provisions
adea
also
parallel
earlier
unlike
title
vii
however
adea
stat
contains
language
significantly
narrows
coverage
permitting
otherwise
prohibited
action
differentiation
based
reasonable
factors
age
hereinafter
rfoa
provision
iii
determining
whether
adea
authorizes
claims
begin
premise
congress
uses
language
two
statutes
similar
purposes
particularly
one
enacted
shortly
appropriate
presume
congress
intended
text
meaning
statutes
northcross
board
ed
memphis
city
schools
per
curiam
consistently
applied
presumption
language
adea
derived
haec
verba
title
vii
lorillard
pons
unanimous
interpretation
title
vii
griggs
therefore
precedent
compelling
importance
griggs
case
decided
four
years
enactment
adea
considered
whether
title
vii
prohibited
employer
requiring
high
school
education
passing
standardized
general
intelligence
test
condition
employment
transfer
jobs
neither
standard
shown
significantly
related
successful
job
performance
requirements
operate
disqualify
negroes
substantially
higher
rate
white
applicants
jobs
question
formerly
filled
white
employees
part
longstanding
practice
giving
preference
whites
accepting
appeals
conclusion
employer
adopted
diploma
test
requirements
without
intent
discriminate
held
good
faith
redeem
employment
procedures
testing
mechanisms
operate
headwinds
minority
groups
unrelated
measuring
job
capability
explained
congress
directed
thrust
act
consequences
employment
practices
simply
motivation
ibid
relied
fact
history
filled
examples
men
women
rendered
highly
effective
performance
without
conventional
badges
accomplishment
terms
certificates
diplomas
degrees
diplomas
tests
useful
servants
congress
mandated
commonsense
proposition
become
masters
reality
noted
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
enforcement
responsibility
issued
guidelines
accorded
view
thus
squarely
held
title
vii
require
showing
discriminatory
opinion
griggs
relied
primarily
purposes
act
buttressed
fact
eeoc
endorsed
view
subsequently
noted
holding
represented
better
reading
statutory
text
well
see
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
neither
comparable
language
adea
simply
prohibits
actions
limit
segregate
classify
persons
rather
language
prohibits
actions
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
race
age
ibid
explaining
cases
employer
practices
may
said
affect
individual
status
alteration
original
quoting
thus
text
focuses
effects
action
employee
rather
motivation
action
griggs
interpreted
identical
text
issue
thus
strongly
suggests
theory
cognizable
indeed
two
decades
decision
griggs
courts
appeal
uniformly
interpreted
adea
authorizing
recovery
theory
appropriate
decision
hazen
paper
biggins
courts
concluded
adea
authorize
theory
opinion
hazen
paper
however
address
comment
issue
decide
today
case
held
employee
allegation
discharged
shortly
pension
vested
state
cause
action
theory
motivating
factor
held
employee
age
rather
years
service
factor
adea
prohibit
employer
considering
terminating
employee
noted
captures
essence
congress
sought
prohibit
adea
careful
explain
deciding
whether
disparate
impact
theory
liability
available
adea
ibid
sum
nothing
opinion
hazen
paper
precludes
interpretation
adea
parallels
holding
griggs
appeals
categorical
rejection
liability
like
justice
rested
primarily
rfoa
provision
majority
analysis
legislative
history
already
explained
think
history
enactment
adea
particular
reference
wirtz
report
supports
paper
consensus
concerning
liability
hazen
paper
contains
response
concern
rfoa
provision
rfoa
provision
provides
shall
unlawful
employer
take
action
otherwise
prohibited
subsectio
differentiation
based
reasonable
factors
age
discrimination
stat
cases
employer
fact
acted
factor
age
action
prohibited
subsection
first
place
see
hazen
paper
noting
title
vii
case
employer
defeat
liability
showing
employee
rejected
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
without
reference
rfoa
provision
cases
however
allegedly
otherwise
prohibited
activity
based
age
ibid
laims
stress
disparate
impact
contrast
involve
employment
practices
facially
neutral
treatment
different
groups
fact
fall
harshly
one
group
another
quoting
teamsters
accordingly
cases
involving
claims
rfoa
provision
plays
principal
role
precluding
liability
adverse
impact
attributable
nonage
factor
reasonable
rather
support
argument
disparate
impact
unavailable
adea
rfoa
provision
actually
supports
contrary
finally
note
department
labor
initially
drafted
legislation
eeoc
agency
charged
congress
responsibility
implementing
statute
consistently
interpreted
adea
authorize
relief
theory
initial
regulations
mentioning
disparate
impact
name
nevertheless
permitted
claims
employer
relied
factor
related
age
cfr
barring
physical
fitness
requirements
reasonably
necessary
specific
work
performed
see
also
setting
forth
standards
claim
text
statute
interpreted
griggs
rfoa
provision
eeoc
regulations
support
petitioners
view
therefore
conclude
error
appeals
hold
theory
liability
categorically
unavailable
adea
iv
two
textual
differences
adea
title
vii
make
clear
even
though
statutes
authorize
recovery
theory
scope
liability
adea
narrower
title
vii
first
rfoa
provision
already
identified
second
amendment
title
vii
contained
civil
rights
act
stat
one
purposes
amendment
modify
holding
wards
cove
packing
atonio
case
narrowly
construed
employer
exposure
liability
theory
see
civil
rights
act
stat
relevant
amendments
expanded
coverage
title
vii
amend
adea
speak
subject
age
discrimination
hence
wards
cove
interpretation
title
vii
identical
language
remains
applicable
adea
congress
decision
limit
coverage
adea
including
rfoa
provision
consistent
fact
age
unlike
race
classifications
protected
title
vii
uncommonly
relevance
individual
capacity
engage
certain
types
employment
sure
congress
recognized
always
case
society
may
perceive
differences
larger
consequential
fact
however
secretary
wirtz
noted
report
certain
circumstances
unquestionably
affect
older
workers
strongly
group
younger
workers
wirtz
report
thus
surprising
certain
employment
criteria
routinely
used
may
reasonable
despite
adverse
impact
older
workers
group
moreover
intentional
discrimination
basis
age
occurred
levels
discrimination
protected
title
vii
adea
reflects
congress
intent
give
older
workers
employment
opportunities
whenever
possible
rfoa
provision
reflects
historical
difference
turning
case
us
initially
note
petitioners
done
little
point
pay
plan
issue
relatively
less
generous
older
workers
younger
workers
identified
specific
test
requirement
practice
within
pay
plan
adverse
impact
older
workers
held
wards
cove
enough
simply
allege
disparate
impact
workers
point
generalized
policy
leads
impact
rather
employee
isolating
identifying
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparities
emphasis
added
quoting
watson
petitioners
failed
failure
identify
specific
practice
challenged
sort
omission
result
employers
potentially
liable
myriad
innocent
causes
may
lead
statistical
imbalances
case
petitioners
thus
err
failing
identify
relevant
practice
also
clear
record
city
plan
based
reasonable
factors
age
plan
divided
five
basic
positions
police
officer
master
police
officer
police
sergeant
police
lieutenant
deputy
police
chief
series
steps
wage
range
based
survey
comparable
communities
southeast
employees
assigned
step
within
position
corresponded
lowest
step
still
give
individual
raise
officers
three
lowest
ranks
ranks
officers
age
officers
none
age
affect
compensation
officers
two
highest
ranks
raises
though
higher
dollar
amount
raises
given
junior
officers
represented
smaller
percentage
salaries
course
higher
salaries
paid
juniors
members
class
complaining
disparate
impact
award
petitioners
evidence
established
two
principal
facts
first
almost
officers
received
raises
less
half
second
average
percentage
increase
entire
class
officers
less
five
years
tenure
somewhat
higher
percentage
older
officers
tended
occupy
senior
positions
average
received
smaller
increases
measured
percentage
salary
basic
explanation
differential
city
perceived
need
raise
salaries
junior
officers
make
competitive
comparable
positions
market
thus
disparate
impact
attributable
city
decision
give
raises
based
seniority
position
reliance
seniority
rank
unquestionably
reasonable
given
city
goal
raising
employees
salaries
match
surrounding
communities
sum
hold
city
decision
grant
larger
raise
lower
echelon
employees
purpose
bringing
salaries
line
surrounding
police
forces
decision
based
reasonable
factor
age
responded
city
legitimate
goal
retaining
police
officers
cf
macpherson
university
montevallo
may
reasonable
ways
city
achieve
goals
one
selected
unreasonable
unlike
business
necessity
test
asks
whether
ways
employer
achieve
goals
result
disparate
impact
protected
class
reasonableness
inquiry
includes
requirement
accordingly
agree
appeals
holding
theory
recovery
never
available
adea
affirm
judgment
ordered
chief
justice
took
part
decision
case
azel
smith
et
petitioners
city
jackson
mississippi
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
march
justice
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
concur
judgment
join
except
part
iii
opinion
part
agree
reasoning
find
basis
independent
determination
question
deferral
reasonable
views
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
commission
pursuant
chevron
natural
resources
defense
council
see
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
scalia
dissenting
absolutely
classic
case
deference
agency
interpretation
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
et
confers
upon
eeoc
authority
issue
rules
regulations
may
consider
necessary
appropriate
carrying
adea
pursuant
authority
eeoc
promulgated
rulemaking
see
fed
reg
regulation
reads
follows
employment
practice
including
test
claimed
basis
different
treatment
employees
applicants
employment
grounds
age
practice
adverse
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
justified
business
necessity
cfr
statement
eeoc
accompanied
publication
agency
final
interpretation
adea
said
following
regarding
regulation
paragraph
rewritten
make
clear
employment
criteria
face
nevertheless
disparate
impact
members
protected
age
group
must
justified
business
necessity
see
laugesen
anaconda
cir
griggs
duke
power
fed
regulation
affirmed
moreover
longstanding
position
department
labor
agency
previously
administered
adea
see
ante
cfr
finally
commission
appeared
numerous
cases
lower
courts
party
amicus
curiae
defend
position
adea
authorizes
even
unduly
constrained
standards
agency
deference
recited
mead
eeoc
reasonable
view
adea
authorizes
claims
deserving
deference
fortiori
entitled
deference
formulation
chevron
tinue
adhere
see
scalia
dissenting
justice
denies
eeoc
taken
position
existence
claims
asserts
even
position
deserve
deference
see
post
opinion
concurring
judgment
first
claim
squared
text
eeoc
regulation
quoted
possibly
read
agnostic
question
whether
adea
prohibits
employer
practices
disparate
impact
aged
provides
practices
justified
business
necessity
compelling
conclusion
absent
business
necessity
practices
justice
defer
eeoc
regulation
even
read
says
regulation
purport
interpret
language
rather
limited
interpretation
reasonable
factors
age
rfoa
clause
adea
says
issue
post
argument
assumes
however
rfoa
clause
operates
independently
remainder
adea
section
provides
relevant
part
shall
unlawful
employer
employment
agency
labor
organization
take
action
otherwise
prohibited
subsections
section
differentiation
based
reasonable
factors
age
emphasis
added
text
makes
clear
rfoa
defense
relevant
response
employer
actions
otherwise
prohibited
adea
hence
unavoidable
meaning
regulation
issue
adea
prohibits
employer
actions
adverse
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
cfr
course
provision
adea
conceivably
interpreted
effect
prohibition
provision
justice
maintains
eeoc
purport
interpret
post
lastly
justice
argues
eeoc
interpretation
otherwise
prohibited
adea
entitled
deference
concludes
regulation
interpretation
another
term
term
reasonable
factors
age
regulation
takes
include
business
necessity
unreasonable
post
logic
seems
two
interpretations
appear
paragraph
stand
fall
together
cites
case
proposition
makes
little
sense
two
simultaneously
adopted
interpretations
contained
distinct
paragraphs
invalidation
one
course
render
infirm
justice
mean
imply
assume
rejection
eeoc
application
phrase
reasonable
factors
age
disparate
impact
claims
paragraph
relieves
lower
courts
obligation
defer
eeoc
applications
phrase
paragraph
conceive
basis
different
rule
simply
two
taneously
adopted
interpretations
appear
paragraph
eeoc
express
authority
promulgate
rules
regulations
interpreting
adea
exercised
authority
recognize
claims
reasons
given
plurality
opinion
position
eminently
reasonable
view
sufficient
resolve
case
azel
smith
et
petitioners
city
jackson
mississippi
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
march
justice
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
concurring
judgment
disparate
treatment
captures
essence
congress
sought
prohibit
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
et
seq
essence
age
discrimination
older
employee
fired
employer
believes
productivity
competence
decline
old
age
hazen
paper
biggins
nearly
four
decades
since
adea
enactment
however
never
read
statute
impose
liability
upon
employer
without
proof
discriminatory
intent
see
ibid
markham
geller
rehnquist
dissenting
denial
certiorari
decline
join
today
instead
affirm
judgment
ground
disparate
impact
claims
cognizable
adea
adea
text
legislative
history
purposes
together
make
clear
congress
intend
statute
authorize
claims
moreover
significant
differences
adea
title
vii
civil
rights
act
counsel
transposing
former
construction
latter
griggs
duke
power
finally
agencies
charged
administering
adea
never
authoritatively
construed
statute
prohibitory
language
impose
disparate
impact
liability
thus
precise
question
statutory
interpretation
us
reasoned
agency
reading
text
might
defer
starting
point
statute
text
section
adea
makes
unlawful
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
age
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
age
neither
petitioners
plurality
contend
first
paragraph
authorizes
disparate
impact
claims
think
obvious
provision
plainly
requires
discriminatory
intent
take
action
individual
individual
age
reason
account
age
see
webster
third
new
international
dictionary
see
also
teamsters
treatment
easily
understood
type
discrimination
employer
simply
treats
people
less
favorably
others
protected
characteristic
proof
discriminatory
motive
critical
emphasis
added
petitioners
look
instead
second
paragraph
basis
disparate
impact
claim
petitioners
argument
founders
plain
language
statute
natural
reading
requires
proof
discriminatory
intent
section
uses
phrase
age
precisely
manner
preceding
paragraph
make
plain
employer
liable
adverse
action
individual
motivated
individual
age
paragraphs
differ
one
informative
respect
employer
actions
targeted
paragraph
refusing
hire
discharging
discriminating
inherently
harmful
targeted
individual
actions
referred
paragraph
hand
limiting
segregating
classifying
facially
neutral
accordingly
paragraph
includes
additional
language
clarifies
give
rise
liability
employer
action
must
actually
injure
someone
decision
limit
segregate
classify
employees
must
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
distinction
aside
structures
paragraphs
otherwise
identical
paragraph
prohibits
employer
taking
specified
adverse
actions
individual
individual
age
plurality
instead
reads
paragraph
prohibit
employer
actions
adversely
affect
individual
status
employe
individual
age
reading
age
refers
cause
adverse
effect
rather
motive
employer
action
see
ante
reading
unpersuasive
two
reasons
first
ignores
obvious
parallel
paragraphs
giving
phrase
individual
age
different
meaning
two
paragraphs
second
ignores
drafters
use
comma
separating
age
clause
preceding
language
comma
makes
plain
age
clause
read
plurality
modify
adversely
affect
phrase
see
ron
pair
enterprises
interpreting
statute
light
drafters
use
comma
set
aside
particular
phrase
following
language
see
also
garner
dictionary
modern
legal
usage
ed
generally
word
follow
comma
rather
age
clause
set
aside
make
clear
modifies
entirety
preceding
paragraph
employer
may
individual
age
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
harms
individual
plurality
also
argues
reading
supported
supposed
incongruity
paragraph
use
plural
referring
employer
actions
limit
segregate
classify
employees
use
singular
individual
age
clause
emphases
added
ante
reasons
stated
age
clause
modifies
preceding
language
paragraph
preceding
language
phrased
plural
insofar
refers
employer
actions
relating
employees
singular
insofar
requires
action
actually
harm
individual
use
singular
age
clause
simply
makes
clear
paragraph
forbids
employer
limit
segregate
classify
employees
decision
taken
even
one
employee
age
individual
alone
together
others
harmed
adea
makes
unlawful
intentionally
discriminate
age
clarifies
shall
unlawful
employer
take
action
otherwise
prohibited
subsections
section
differentiation
based
reasonable
factors
age
reasonable
factors
age
rfoa
provision
insure
employers
permitted
use
neutral
criteria
age
eeoc
wyoming
even
results
disparate
adverse
impact
older
workers
provision
therefore
expresses
congress
clear
intention
employers
subject
liability
absent
proof
intentional
discrimination
policy
view
easily
reconciled
plurality
expansive
reading
plurality
however
reasons
rfoa
provision
language
instead
confirms
authorizes
disparate
impact
claims
prohibited
intentional
discrimination
argument
goes
rfoa
provision
effect
action
based
factor
age
see
ante
moreover
plurality
says
rfoa
provision
applies
employer
actions
based
reasonable
factors
age
employers
may
still
held
liable
actions
based
unreasonable
nonage
factors
see
ante
argument
misconstrues
purpose
effect
rfoa
provision
discriminatory
intent
required
reasons
discussed
role
rfoa
provision
afford
employers
independent
safe
harbor
liability
provides
plaintiff
made
prima
facie
case
intentional
age
discrimination
thus
creat
ing
presumption
employer
unlawfully
discriminated
employee
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
employer
rebut
case
producing
evidence
action
based
reasonable
nonage
factor
thus
rfoa
provision
codifies
safe
harbor
analogous
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
lnr
justification
later
recognized
title
vii
suits
ibid
mcdonnell
douglas
green
assuming
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
applies
adea
suits
see
consolidated
coin
caterers
rebuttal
function
rfoa
provision
arguably
redundant
judicially
established
lnr
justification
see
ante
merely
demonstrates
congress
abundance
caution
codifying
express
statutory
exemption
liability
absence
discriminatory
intent
see
fort
stewart
schools
flra
provisions
although
technically
unnecessary
sometimes
inserted
abundance
caution
drafting
imprecision
venerable
enough
left
mark
legal
latin
ex
abundanti
cautela
noteworthy
even
mcdonnell
douglas
decided
lower
courts
continued
rely
rfoa
exemption
lieu
lnr
justification
basis
rebutting
prima
facie
case
age
discrimination
see
krieg
paul
revere
life
ins
per
curiam
schwager
sun
oil
bittar
air
canada
per
curiam
event
rfoa
provision
also
plays
distinct
clearly
nonredundant
role
cases
cases
adverse
action
taken
substantial
part
employee
age
may
otherwise
prohibited
see
desert
palace
costa
price
waterhouse
hopkins
concurring
judgment
rfoa
exemption
makes
clear
conduct
nevertheless
lawful
long
based
reasonable
factor
age
finally
rfoa
provision
reference
reasonable
factors
serves
prevent
employer
gaining
benefit
statutory
safe
harbor
offering
irrational
justification
reliance
unreasonable
nonage
factor
indicate
employer
explanation
fact
pretext
intentional
discrimination
see
reeves
sanderson
plumbing
products
see
also
hazen
paper
ii
legislative
history
adea
confirms
text
plainly
indicates
congress
never
intended
statute
authorize
disparate
impact
claims
drafters
adea
congress
enacted
understood
age
discrimination
qualitatively
different
kinds
discrimination
addressed
title
vii
many
legitimate
employment
practices
disparate
impact
older
workers
accordingly
congress
determined
disparate
impact
problem
best
addressed
noncoercive
measures
adea
prohibitory
provisions
reserved
combating
intentional
discrimination
although
congress
rejected
proposals
address
age
discrimination
civil
rights
act
act
directed
secretary
labor
undertake
study
age
discrimination
employment
submit
congress
report
containing
recommendations
legislation
prevent
arbitrary
discrimination
employment
age
determines
advisable
stat
see
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
eeoc
wyoming
supra
response
secretary
willard
wirtz
submitted
report
provided
blueprint
adea
see
report
secretary
labor
older
american
worker
age
discrimination
employment
june
reprinted
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
legislative
history
age
discrimination
employment
act
hereinafter
wirtz
report
report
adea
modeled
wirtz
report
findings
recommendations
report
provides
critical
insights
statute
meaning
see
generally
blumrosen
interpreting
adea
intent
impact
age
discrimination
employment
act
compliance
manual
lawyers
personnel
practitioners
lake
ed
see
also
general
dynamics
supra
relying
wirtz
report
interpret
adea
eeoc
wyoming
discussing
report
role
drafting
adea
wirtz
report
reached
two
conclusions
central
relevance
question
presented
case
first
report
emphasized
age
discrimination
qualitatively
different
types
discrimination
prohibited
title
vii
civil
rights
act
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
discrimination
importantly
stark
contrast
types
discrimination
addressed
title
vii
report
found
evidence
age
discrimination
resulted
intolerance
animus
towards
older
workers
rather
age
discrimination
based
primarily
upon
unfounded
assumptions
relationship
individual
age
ability
perform
job
wirtz
report
addition
whereas
ability
nearly
always
completely
unrelated
characteristics
protected
title
vii
report
found
cases
fact
relationship
individual
age
ability
perform
job
ibid
emphasis
deleted
second
wirtz
report
drew
sharp
distinction
report
clearly
equates
disparate
treatment
circumstances
practices
disparate
impact
older
workers
see
report
defined
arbitrary
discrimination
adverse
treatment
older
workers
assumptions
effect
age
ability
job
fact
basis
assumptions
emphasis
original
obvious
kind
arbitrary
discrimination
setting
unjustified
maximum
age
limits
employment
naturally
report
definition
encompasses
broad
range
disparate
treatment
report
distinguished
arbitrary
intentional
unfounded
discrimination
two
phenomena
one
involves
differentiation
employees
based
genuine
relationship
age
ability
perform
job
see
connection
report
examined
circumstances
unquestionably
affect
older
workers
strongly
group
younger
workers
including
questions
health
educational
attainment
technological
change
addition
report
assessed
institutional
arrangements
seniority
rules
workers
compensation
laws
pension
plans
though
intended
benefit
older
workers
might
actually
make
employers
less
likely
hire
retain
report
specifically
recommended
legislative
action
prohibit
arbitrary
discrimination
disparate
treatment
sharp
contrast
recommended
two
types
discrimination
involving
factors
practices
disparate
impact
older
workers
addressed
noncoercive
measures
programs
increase
availability
employment
continuing
education
adjustment
pension
systems
workers
compensation
institutional
arrangements
recommendations
found
direct
expression
adea
drafted
congress
command
secretary
labor
make
specific
legislative
recommendations
implementing
wirtz
report
conclusions
fair
labor
standards
amendments
stat
see
also
general
dynamics
adea
begins
statements
purpose
findings
mirror
wirtz
report
adea
structure
confirms
congress
determination
prohibit
arbitrary
discrimination
disparate
treatment
based
unfounded
assumptions
addressing
practices
disparate
adverse
impact
older
workers
noncoercive
measures
section
sets
forth
findings
purposes
statute
draws
clear
distinction
setting
arbitrary
age
limits
regardless
potential
job
performance
certain
otherwise
desirable
practices
may
work
disadvantage
older
persons
response
problems
identifies
three
purposes
adea
promote
employment
older
persons
based
ability
rather
age
prohibit
arbitrary
age
discrimination
employment
help
employers
workers
find
ways
meeting
problems
arising
impact
age
employment
three
purposes
corresponds
one
three
substantive
statutory
sections
follow
section
seeks
promote
employment
older
persons
directing
secretary
labor
undertake
program
research
education
related
needs
abilities
older
workers
potentials
continued
employment
contribution
economy
section
contains
adea
core
prohibitions
corresponds
second
purpose
prohibit
arbitrary
age
discrimination
employment
finally
addresses
third
statutory
purpose
requiring
secretary
labor
undertake
study
institutional
arrangements
giving
rise
involuntary
retirement
submit
resulting
findings
legislative
recommendations
congress
section
including
must
read
light
express
statutory
purpose
provision
intended
effect
prohibition
arbitrary
age
discrimination
employment
legislative
history
makes
plain
arbitrary
age
discrimination
specific
meaning
adea
drafters
meant
disparate
treatment
older
workers
predominantly
unfounded
assumptions
relationship
age
ability
see
supra
intentional
discrimination
clearly
distinguished
circumstances
practices
merely
disparate
impact
older
workers
adea
make
clear
congress
intended
address
research
education
possible
future
legislative
action
addition
affirmative
evidence
congressional
intent
find
telling
legislative
history
devoid
discussion
disparate
impact
claims
complicated
issues
claims
raise
adea
context
see
gold
disparate
impact
age
discrimination
employment
act
berkeley
emp
lab
time
adea
enacted
predominant
focus
antidiscrimination
law
intentional
discrimination
concept
disparate
impact
liability
contrast
quite
novel
see
gold
griggs
folly
essay
theory
problems
origin
adverse
impact
definition
employment
discrimination
recommendation
reform
indus
rel
blumrosen
strangers
paradise
griggs
duke
power
concept
employment
discrimination
rev
congress
intended
inaugurate
disparate
impact
liability
adea
one
expect
find
indication
intent
text
legislative
history
none
congress
decision
authorize
disparate
impact
claims
understandable
light
questionable
utility
claims
context
one
argue
older
workers
suffered
disadvantages
result
entrenched
historical
patterns
discrimination
like
racial
minorities
see
massachusetts
bd
retirement
murgia
per
curiam
see
also
wirtz
report
accordingly
disparate
impact
liability
adea
justified
necessary
means
redressing
cumulative
results
past
discrimination
cf
griggs
reasoning
disparate
impact
liability
necessary
title
vii
prevent
perpetuation
results
past
racial
discrimination
moreover
wirtz
report
correctly
concluded
unlike
classifications
protected
title
vii
often
correlation
individual
age
ability
perform
job
wirtz
report
expected
physical
ability
generally
declines
age
murgia
supra
cases
mental
capacity
see
gregory
ashcroft
perhaps
importantly
advances
technology
increasing
access
formal
education
often
leave
older
workers
competitive
disadvantage
younger
workers
wirtz
report
beyond
factors
also
fact
many
employment
benefits
salary
vacation
time
forth
increase
employee
gains
experience
seniority
see
finnegan
trans
world
airlines
irtually
elements
standard
compensation
package
positively
correlated
age
accordingly
many
employer
decisions
intended
cut
costs
respond
market
forces
likely
disproportionate
effect
older
workers
given
myriad
ways
legitimate
business
practices
disparate
impact
older
workers
hardly
surprising
congress
declined
subject
employers
civil
liability
based
solely
effects
iii
plurality
justice
scalia
offer
two
principal
arguments
favor
reading
statute
relevant
provision
adea
read
pari
materia
parallel
provision
title
vii
give
interpretive
weight
deference
agency
statements
relating
disparate
impact
liability
find
neither
argument
persuasive
language
adea
prohibitory
provisions
modeled
nearly
identical
parallel
provisions
title
vii
see
mckennon
nashville
banner
publishing
lorillard
pons
griggs
supra
held
title
vii
permits
disparate
impact
claims
plurality
concludes
read
adea
similarly
ante
obviously
argument
great
deal
convincing
griggs
decided
adea
enacted
case
safely
assume
congress
notice
therefore
intended
language
issue
read
authorize
disparate
impact
claims
see
department
energy
ohio
holmes
securities
investor
protection
corporation
griggs
decided
four
years
adea
enactment
reason
suppose
congress
foreseen
interpretation
title
vii
come
see
fogerty
fantasy
see
also
supra
discussing
novelty
disparate
impact
theory
time
adea
enactment
sure
two
statutes
use
similar
language
generally
take
strong
indication
interpreted
pari
passu
northcross
board
ed
memphis
city
schools
per
curiam
rigid
absolute
rule
indicia
congressional
intent
general
dynamics
indeed
meaning
words
well
may
vary
meet
purposes
law
cleveland
indians
baseball
alteration
original
quoting
atlantic
cleaners
dyers
supra
accordingly
hesitated
give
different
reading
language
whether
appearing
separate
statutes
separate
provisions
statute
strong
evidence
congress
intend
language
used
uniformly
see
general
dynamics
supra
age
different
meaning
used
different
parts
adea
cleveland
indians
supra
wages
paid
different
meanings
different
provisions
title
robinson
shell
oil
employee
different
meanings
different
parts
title
vii
fogerty
supra
copyright
act
attorney
fees
provision
different
meaning
analogous
provision
title
vii
despite
virtually
identical
language
case
first
significant
textual
differences
title
vii
adea
indicate
differences
congressional
intent
importantly
whereas
adea
rfoa
provision
protects
employers
liability
actions
motivated
age
see
supra
title
vii
lacks
similar
provision
addition
adea
structure
demonstrates
congress
intent
combat
intentional
discrimination
prohibitions
addressing
employment
practices
disparate
impact
older
workers
independent
noncoercive
mechanisms
see
supra
analogy
structure
title
vii
furthermore
congresses
adopted
title
vii
adea
clearly
recognized
two
statutes
intended
address
qualitatively
different
kinds
discrimination
see
supra
disparate
impact
liability
may
legitimate
role
combating
types
discrimination
addressed
title
vii
nature
aging
age
discrimination
makes
liability
inappropriate
adea
see
supra
finally
nothing
decision
griggs
provides
reason
extend
holding
adea
plurality
tacitly
acknowledges
ante
decision
griggs
based
analysis
title
vii
actual
language
rather
ratio
decidendi
statute
perceived
purpose
achieve
equality
employment
opportunities
remove
barriers
operated
past
favor
identifiable
group
white
employees
employees
act
practices
procedures
tests
neutral
face
even
neutral
terms
intent
maintained
operate
status
quo
prior
discriminatory
employment
practices
words
griggs
reasoned
disparate
impact
liability
necessary
achieve
title
vii
ostensible
goal
eliminating
cumulative
effects
historical
racial
discrimination
however
rationale
finds
parallel
adea
context
see
murgia
therefore
control
decision
even
venerable
canons
construction
must
bow
appropriate
case
compelling
evidence
congressional
intent
judgment
significant
differences
title
vii
adea
sufficient
overcome
default
presumption
similar
language
read
similarly
see
fogerty
supra
concluding
normal
indication
similar
language
read
similarly
overborne
differences
legislative
history
purposes
two
statutes
plurality
asserts
agencies
charged
adea
administration
consistently
interpreted
statute
authorize
relief
theory
ante
support
claim
plurality
describes
interpretive
bulletin
issued
department
labor
permitt
ing
disparate
impact
claims
ibid
citing
cfr
plurality
cites
without
comment
equal
employment
opportunities
commission
eeoc
policy
statement
construing
rfoa
provision
ante
citing
cfr
unclear
interpretive
value
plurality
means
assign
agency
statements
justice
scalia
least
thinks
eeoc
statement
entitled
deference
chevron
natural
resources
defense
council
sufficient
resolve
case
ante
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
disagree
reasons
follow
give
weight
statements
question
labor
department
bulletin
plurality
alludes
intended
provide
practical
guide
employers
employees
office
representing
public
interest
enforcement
seek
apply
cfr
quoting
skidmore
swift
discussing
rfoa
provision
bulletin
physical
fitness
requirements
valuation
factors
quantity
quality
production
educational
level
qualify
reasonable
nonage
factors
long
valid
relationship
job
qualifications
uniformly
applied
bulletin
construe
adea
prohibitory
provisions
state
imply
authorizes
disparate
impact
claims
rather
establishes
nonexclusive
objective
test
employers
use
determining
whether
certain
qualifying
rfoa
exemption
public
employees
retirement
system
ohio
betts
discussing
bulletin
interpretation
exemption
moreover
bulletin
unequivocally
clear
purpose
adea
insure
age
within
limits
prescribed
act
determining
factor
making
decision
regarding
hiring
dismissal
promotion
term
condition
privilege
employment
individual
emphasis
added
language
discriminatory
intent
eeoc
statement
cited
plurality
relied
upon
justice
scalia
equally
unhelpful
interpretative
rule
policy
statement
promulgated
superseded
labor
department
bulletin
responsibility
enforcing
adea
transferred
labor
eeoc
see
fed
reg
relevant
part
hen
employment
practice
including
test
claimed
basis
different
treatment
employees
applicants
employment
grounds
age
practice
adverse
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
justified
business
necessity
cfr
like
bulletin
replaces
statement
merely
spells
agency
view
purposes
enforcement
policy
employer
must
certain
gaining
safety
rfoa
says
nothing
whether
disparate
impact
claims
authorized
adea
justice
scalia
absolutely
classic
case
deference
agency
interpretation
ante
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
disagree
chevron
defer
reasonable
agency
interpretation
ambiguous
statutory
language
see
rationale
deference
congress
explicitly
implicitly
delegated
agency
responsible
administering
statute
authority
choose
among
permissible
constructions
ambiguous
statutory
text
see
chevron
supra
question
us
takes
qualify
rfoa
exemption
rather
whether
adea
authorizes
disparate
impact
claims
eeoc
statement
purport
interpret
language
quite
simply
agency
actually
exercised
delegated
authority
resolve
ambiguity
relevant
provision
text
much
less
done
reasonable
persuasive
manner
specific
question
presented
therefore
regulation
entitled
deference
see
john
hancock
mut
life
ins
harris
trust
sav
bank
see
also
sec
sloan
adamo
wrecking
justice
scalia
attempt
link
eeoc
rfoa
regulation
premised
dubious
chain
inferences
view
highlights
hazards
approach
rfoa
provision
relevant
response
employer
actions
prohibited
adea
reasons
unavoidable
meaning
eeoc
statement
agency
interprets
adea
prohibit
employer
actions
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
ante
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
quoting
cfr
course
disparate
treatment
clearly
adverse
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
justice
scalia
reading
eeoc
rule
hardly
unavoidable
regulation
says
employer
wants
rely
practice
say
physical
fitness
test
basis
exemption
liability
test
adversely
affects
older
workers
employer
sure
qualifying
exemption
test
sufficiently
job
related
limitation
makes
sense
disparate
treatment
cases
test
harms
older
workers
unrelated
job
may
pretext
even
means
effectuating
intentional
discrimination
see
supra
justice
scalia
completes
analytical
chain
inferring
eeoc
regulation
must
read
interpret
allow
disparate
impact
claims
provision
adea
conceivably
interpreted
ante
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
support
inference
doubtful
say
least
regulation
specifically
refers
employment
practices
claimed
basis
different
treatment
employees
applicants
employment
cfr
emphasis
added
section
course
apply
applicants
employment
protects
group
see
suggests
eeoc
must
read
rfoa
provide
defense
claims
unquestionably
permits
disparate
treatment
claims
see
supra
discussion
serves
illustrate
makes
little
sense
attribute
agency
construction
relevant
statutory
text
agency
actually
articulated
defer
reading
approach
particularly
troubling
applied
question
weighty
whether
statute
subject
employers
liability
absent
discriminatory
intent
view
chevron
contemplated
interpretation
rfoa
provision
moreover
eeoc
regulation
unreasonable
face
directly
odds
holding
today
case
says
rfoa
exemption
available
employer
practice
justified
business
necessity
rejected
reading
rfoa
provision
rightly
may
many
reasonable
means
employer
advance
goals
given
nonage
factor
certainly
reasonable
without
necessary
ante
see
also
western
air
lines
criswell
distinguishing
standard
course
elementary
deference
due
agency
interpretations
odds
plain
language
statute
betts
agency
clearly
misread
rfoa
provision
attempting
construe
error
necessarily
dispositive
disparate
impact
question
think
highlights
improvidence
giving
weight
let
alone
deferring
regulation
purported
assumption
entirely
different
provision
statute
even
subject
regulation
authorizes
disparate
impact
claims
view
simply
acknowledge
regulation
help
answering
question
presented
iv
although
read
adea
authorize
disparate
impact
claims
agree
claims
allowed
strictly
circumscribed
rfoa
exemption
see
ante
exemption
requires
challenged
employment
practice
based
reasonable
nonage
factor
one
rationally
related
legitimate
business
objective
also
agree
ante
disparate
impact
claims
permitted
adea
governed
standards
set
forth
decision
wards
cove
packing
atonio
means
holds
ante
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
application
specific
particular
employment
practice
created
disparate
impact
attack
wards
cove
supra
emphasis
added
see
also
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
opinion
also
means
employer
produced
evidence
action
based
reasonable
nonage
factor
plaintiff
bears
burden
disproving
assertion
see
wards
cove
supra
see
also
watson
supra
opinion
even
petitioners
disparate
impact
claim
cognizable
adea
claim
clearly
fail
light
requirements
footnotes
app
see
cong
rec
amendment
offered
dowdy
voted
amendment
offered
smathers
voted
like
title
vii
respect
protected
classes
except
race
adea
provides
affirmative
defense
liability
age
bona
fide
occupational
qualification
reasonably
necessary
normal
operation
particular
business
stat
cf
civil
rights
act
stat
notwithstanding
provision
title
shall
unlawful
perform
prohibited
activities
basis
religion
sex
national
origin
certain
instances
religion
sex
national
origin
bona
fide
occupational
qualification
reasonably
necessary
normal
operation
particular
business
enterprise
oscar
mayer
evans
interpreting
adea
light
title
vii
western
air
lines
criswell
interpreting
adea
bona
fide
occupational
qualification
exception
light
title
vii
bfoq
exception
trans
world
airlines
thurston
interpreting
adea
apply
denial
privileges
cases
similar
manner
title
vii
congressional
purposes
relied
griggs
striking
parallel
two
important
points
made
wirtz
report
griggs
opinion
ruled
discrimination
based
racial
animus
problem
case
wirtz
report
concluded
significant
discrimination
kind
far
older
workers
concerned
wirtz
report
griggs
recognized
high
school
diploma
requirement
unrelated
job
performance
unfair
impact
received
inferior
educational
opportunities
segregated
schools
wirtz
report
identified
identical
obstacle
employment
older
workers
formal
employment
standard
requires
example
high
school
diploma
obviously
work
employment
many
older
workers
unfairly
despite
limited
schooling
older
worker
years
experience
given
relevant
equivalent
high
school
education
wirtz
report
thus
statutory
text
identical
remarkable
similarity
congressional
goals
cited
griggs
present
wirtz
report
reaching
contrary
conclusion
justice
ignores
key
textual
differences
liability
section
makes
unlawful
employer
fail
refuse
hire
individual
individual
age
emphasis
added
focus
section
employer
actions
respect
targeted
individual
paragraph
however
makes
unlawful
employer
limit
employees
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
age
emphasis
added
unlike
paragraph
thus
incongruity
employer
actions
focused
employees
generally
individual
employee
adversely
suffers
actions
thus
employer
classifies
employees
without
respect
age
may
still
liable
terms
paragraph
classification
adversely
affects
employee
employee
age
definition
disparate
impact
justice
therefore
quite
wrong
suggest
textual
differences
two
paragraphs
unimportant
justice
reaches
contrary
conclusion
based
text
statute
legislative
history
structure
statute
explain
supra
textual
reasoning
persuasive
congress
may
intended
remedy
type
situations
noncoercive
measures
part
nothing
suggest
intended
measures
sole
method
achieving
desired
result
remedying
practices
adverse
effect
older
workers
finally
agree
differences
age
classes
protected
title
vii
relevant
congress
might
well
intended
treat
two
differently
see
infra
concurring
judgment
however
congress
obviously
considered
classes
individuals
sufficiently
similar
warrant
enacting
identical
legislation
least
respect
employment
practices
sought
prohibit
differences
coupled
difference
text
statue
rfoa
provision
may
warrant
addressing
claims
two
statutes
differently
see
infra
justify
departing
plain
text
settled
interpretation
text
lindemann
kadue
age
discrimination
employment
law
citing
holt
gamewell
maresco
evans
chemetics
blum
witco
chemical
wooden
board
ed
jefferson
monroe
airlines
dace
acf
industries
modified
per
curiam
palmer
faulkner
super
valu
stores
assuming
theory
macpherson
university
montevallo
arnold
postal
service
cadc
assuming
theory
see
mullin
raytheon
ectonic
plates
shifted
decided
hazen
paper
gantt
wilson
sporting
goods
considerable
doubt
whether
claim
age
discrimination
may
exist
theory
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
see
also
lindemann
kadue
collecting
cases
contrast
first
seventh
tenth
eleventh
circuits
held
theory
second
eighth
ninth
circuits
continue
recognize
theory
note
however
challenged
conduct
actionable
employee
retirement
income
security
act
note
congress
intended
prohibit
claims
certainly
done
instance
equal
pay
act
congress
barred
recovery
pay
differential
based
factor
reasonable
unreasonable
sex
fact
congress
provided
employees
use
reasonable
factors
defending
suit
adea
therefore
instructive
exhibit
record
app
pet
cert
footnotes
see
brief
eeoc
amicus
curiae
supporting
meacham
knolls
atomic
power
laboratory
etc
available
http
internet
materials
visited
mar
available
clerk
case
file
commission
consistently
defended
interpretation
announced
cfr
arguing
claim
discrimination
disparate
impact
theory
cognizable
brief
eeoc
amicus
curiae
supporting
seeking
reversal
sitko
goodyear
tire
rubber
available
http
pending
eeoc
mcdonnell
douglas
perhaps
justice
adopts
narrower
position
eeoc
taken
view
adea
prohibits
actions
disparate
impact
stopped
short
recognizing
disparate
impact
claims
post
opinion
concurring
judgment
emphasis
added
position
equally
misguided
eeoc
need
take
extra
step
recognizing
individuals
harmed
prohibited
actions
right
sue
adea
makes
automatic
person
aggrieved
may
bring
civil
action
competent
jurisdiction
legal
equitable
relief
effectuate
purposes
chapter
justice
argues
regulation
necessarily
construe
subsection
prohibit
disparate
impact
disparate
treatment
also
effect
regulation
addresses
adverse
impact
individuals
within
protected
age
group
cfr
see
post
true
enough
question
whether
disparate
treatment
claims
disparate
impact
also
covered
regulation
whether
disparate
impact
claims
sorts
covered
way
avoid
conclusion
consistently
reaffirmed
agency
actions
years
also
complete
response
justice
point
regulation
refer
includes
applicants
employment
protected
perhaps
applicants
employment
covered
justice
posits
disparate
treatment
results
disparate
impact
perhaps
agency
attempt
sweep
employment
applications
disparate
impact
prohibition
mistaken
whatever
addition
may
cover
may
erroneously
seek
cover
impossible
contend
regulation
cover
actions
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
produces
disparate
impact
within
protected
age
group
basis
interpretation
actions
prohibited
footnotes
connection
report
refers
formal
employment
standards
requiring
high
school
diploma
see
wirtz
report
wirtz
report
say
requirement
unfair
older
worker
years
experience
given
equivalent
education
ibid
plurality
mistaken
find
statement
congressional
goal
eliminating
job
requirements
disparate
impact
older
workers
see
ante
rather
wirtz
report
discussed
diploma
requirement
context
broader
discussion
effects
wholly
impersonal
forces
part
properly
sometimes
casually
called
wirtz
report
forces
included
pace
changing
technology
changing
jobs
changing
educational
requirements
changing
personnel
practices
increase
need
special
efforts
older
workers
employment
prospects
improve
significantly
ibid
emphasis
added
see
also
discussing
educational
attainments
older
workers
together
health
technological
change
section
entitled
necessary
recognition
forces
circumstance
report
recommended
forces
addressed
noncoercive
instead
prohibitory
measures
specifically
focused
need
educational
opportunities
older
workers
see
eeoc
regulation
actually
interpret
text
issue
need
address
degree
deference
regulation
otherwise
entitled
cf
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
declining
address
whether
eeoc
regulations
interpreting
adea
entitled
chevron
deference