You know it is unlawful to discriminate against older workers.  After all, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was designed to eradicate discrimination against older workers in terms of hiring, promotions, and compensation.

So what about discrimination in favor of older workers?  Is that a violation?

The Supreme Court sounded off on the issue earlier this year and squarely ruled that discrimination in favor of older workers is not a violation of the ADEA.  In that case, a union contract agreed to by the company provided better benefits for those aged 40 and older.  Some younger employees sued, claiming they were "discriminated" against because of their age.  The court threw out the claim.  In so doing, the court reasoned that age discrimination is generally understood to refer to bias against older individuals.  The Court further explained,

"One commonplace conception of American society in recent decades is its character as a "youth culture," and in a world where younger is better, talk about discrimination because of age is naturally understood to refer to discrimination against the older."

The Court also noted the absence of evidence suggesting that the ADEA was passed to protect younger workers who were suffering at the expense of their elders.  According to the majority, "if Congress had been worrying about protecting the younger against the older, it would not likely have ignored everyone under 40."

Thus, the Supreme Court has effectively closed the door on "reverse" age discrimination cases.  Be careful in states like Florida and Michigan, where state laws do prohibit preferences based on age -- older and younger.

If you have any questions about benefits and whether they favor one group over another, call one of the attorneys at Phelps Jenkins with experience in employment issues.