1. Do you agree with the court that age and years of service are sufficiently distinct to allow for terminations based on years of service and to find no violation of the ADEA where the terminations result in a greater proportion of older workers being fired?

2. Aren’t workers close to vesting more likely to be older workers? And, if so, then do you believe that an employer can use the category “close to vesting” to avoid liability under the ADEA?

3. If an employer did terminate a group of individuals on the basis of their being “close to vesting” with the intention to get rid of older workers, what type of evidence would the employees/plaintiffs be able to use to prove the unlawful intent?

Issue: Did Hazen Paper Co. fire Biggins to prevent his pension benefits from vesting? If so, was it a violation of ADEA and/or ERISA?

Facts: Hazen Paper hired Walter Biggins as their technical director in 1977 and fired him in 1986 at the age of 62. Biggins claims that he was fired in violation of the ADEA and in an effort to prevent his pension benefits from vesting. Defendant claims that Biggins was fired for doing business with its competitors. A jury found for Biggins and specifically found that Defendant had acted willfully, giving rise to an increased damage award. The appellate court upheld the decision for plaintiff but reversed the verdict as to willfulness.

Decision: Judgment for Biggins. Justice O’Connor held that firing someone to prevent his pension from vesting is not an ADEA violation, and violation of ADEA is willful if the employee either knew of or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute. Firing someone to prevent his pension benefits from vesting is an ERISA violation. The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy and Thomas concurred.