Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
116 S. Ct. 1307 (U.S. 1996); No. 95-354 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51109
Description
Employee Need Not Prove That He Was Replaced by a Worker Outside the Protected Class in Order to Establish Prima Facie Case of Age Discrimination
Abstract
The Supreme Court has held that petitioner need not prove that he
was replaced by a worker under 40 in order to make a prima facie
case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Petitioner had been employed by respondent employer for 12 years
when, at age 56, he was fired. Claiming dismissal due to his age in
violation of the ADEA, petitioner sued. The district court granted
employer summary judgment. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that
petitioner could establish a prima facie case under McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), only if he could prove
that (1) he was in the age group protected by the ADEA; (2) he was
discharged or demoted; (3) at the time of his discharge or
demotion, he was performing his job at a level that met his
employer's legitimate expectations; and (4) after his discharge
or demotion, he was replaced by someone of comparable
qualifications outside the protected class. Since petitioner's
replacement was 40 years old, the court of appeals found that he
did not meet the last element of a prima facie case and affirmed
his dismissal. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court held that
there must be at least a logical connection between each element of
the prima facie case and the illegal discrimination; the element of
replacement by someone under 40 fails this requirement; the statute
does not ban discrimination against employees because they are 40
or older-it bans discrimination against employees because of their
age but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older;
that one person in the protected class lost out to another in the
protected class is irrelevant so long as he lost out because of his
age.
