This article–“Court Looks at Age Discrimination Issue“–gives an inside look at what went on today in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline. The article opens with this:
Supreme Court justices with an average age of nearly 70 wrangled Wednesday over whether workers in their 40s can sue employers for offering better benefits to older colleagues, a type of reverse age discrimination.
The case involves 41- to 50-year-old workers from General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The workers for the General Dynamics Corp. (GD) unit lost post-retirement health benefits under a new labor contract negotiated between the company and the United Auto Workers labor union. Under the contract, workers who were over 50 were allowed to keep their health benefits. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have said the health benefits change violates the age discrimination law.
The article indicates that the Supreme Court justices seemed “skeptical of allowing the reverse discrimination lawsuits.” According to the article, Justice Scalia warned that if the midcareer workers win in this appeal, a law that was meant to aid older workers could end up harming them in what Justice Scalia termed “a very strange consequence of this legislation.'” The article further notes:
“Mark Biggerman, the lawyer for the workers who brought the case, said companies cannot single out gray-haired workers for better treatment than those with less gray hair. That prompted the dark-haired [Justice] Scalia, 67, to joke that senior citizens do not necessarily have gray hair.”
The Wall Street Journal also reports: “High Court Doubts Younger Workers In Discrimination Suit.”
From the WSJ article:
“Congress’ intent here was to make age a neutral factor,” said Biggerman, who said the law applies “whenever one individual loses out because of age.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor curtly replied, “Do you think Congress really intended such a result?”
You can access a previous post discussing some of the benefits ramifications of the case here.
UPDATE 11/13: More articles: