James O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers (Case 16.5)

The issue in this case is whether an employee alleging age discrimination must be replaced by someone under 40 years of age.

JUSTICE SCALIA DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

This case presents the question whether a plaintiff alleging that he was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) must show that he was replaced by someone outside the age group protected by the ADEA to make out a prima facie case under the framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.

Petitioner James O'Connor was employed by respondent Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation from 1978 until August 10, 1990, when, at age 56, he was fired. Claiming that he had been dismissed because of his age in violation of the ADEA, petitioner brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. After discovery, the District Court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that petitioner could establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas 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) following 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 concluded that the last element of the prima facie case had not been made out. Finding that petitioner's claim could not survive a motion for summary judgment without benefit of the McDonnell Douglas presumption, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of dismissal. We granted O'Connor's petition for certiorari.

As the very name "prima facie case" suggests, there must be at least a logical connection be- tween each element of the prima facie case and the illegal discrimination for which it establishes a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption." The element of replacement by someone under 40 fails this requirement. The discrimination prohibited by the ADEA is discrimination "because of an individual's age," though the prohibition is "limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age." This language does not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40 of older; it bans discrimination against employees because of their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older. The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is thus irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his . Or to put the point more concretely, there can be no greater inference of age discrimination xben a 56 year-old is replaced by a 40 year-old. Because it lacks probative value, the fact that anADEA plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case.

Because the ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and not class membership, the fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class. The judgement of the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Judgement for O'Connor

Case Commentary

The U.S. Supreme Court Decided that an older person who was discharged does not have to be replaced by someone under 40 years of age to allege age discrimination. The disparity in age is key.

Case Questions

1. Are you in agreement with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court?

2. If the age discrimination threshold is 40 years of age, why would the court allow an employee to sue when his or her replacement is over 40 years old?

3. Should the requirement for age discrimination be the age of the replacement, disparity in age, or both?