Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse IRMI OnlineIRMI Online
Expand How To Use IRMI OnlineHow To Use IRMI Online
My Paid Publications
Expand What's NewWhat's New
Expand DashboardsDashboards
Expand Commercial Liability InformationCommercial Liability Information
Expand Commercial Property InformationCommercial Property Information
Expand Commercial Auto InformationCommercial Auto Information
Collapse D&O, PL, E&O, EPLI InformationD&O, PL, E&O, EPLI Information
Collapse Free D&O, E&O, EPLI CommentaryFree D&O, E&O, EPLI Commentary
Collapse Employment PracticesEmployment Practices
Oral Complaint Sufficient To Trigger FLSA's Retaliation Provision (November 2011)
Supreme Court Rejects Wal-Mart Class Action (August 2011)
No Narrowing Summary Judgment Standard for Discrimination Cases (July 2011)
Supreme Court Rules for Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements (May 2011)
Supreme Court Broadens Title VII Retaliation Claims (March 2011)
Supreme Court: Holds Public Employer Search Not Unreasonable (August 2010)
New Supreme Court Standard for Retaliation Claims (May 2010)
No Compensatory/Punitive Damages for ADA Retaliation Claims (February 2010)
New EEOC Guidance on Waivers of Discrimination Claims (August 2009)
Do Employee Layoffs Equal Litigation? (April 2009)
Should Employers "Google" Applicants? (February 2009)
11th Circuit Requires Comparables in Descrimination Case (December 2008)
Recent Employee-Friendly Court Decisions (September 2008)
"Reasonable Factors Other Than Age" as an Affirmative Defense (August 2008)
"Associational" Discrimination Claims a Growing Concern (May 2008)
NY Steps Up Employment Oversight (February 2008)
Age Discrimination Legal Update (December 2007)
States Expand Employee Protection to Families of Servicemen (August 2007)
NY Court Refuses To Extend Liability to Nonprofits (June 2007)
Special Rules on Release Agreements for Workers (March 2007)
How Companies Are Bracing for EEOC Class Action Goals (February 2007)
Unauthorized Breach of Electronic Personal Information (November 2006)
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (October 2006)
"Simple Logic" Precludes Ambiguity in Offer Letter (September 2006)
Supreme Court Loosens Standard in Retaliation Lawsuits (July 2006)
2005 Workplace Survey Shows Decrease in Lawsuits (June 2006)
Wage-Hour Update: Class Actions on the Rise (March 2006)
4th Circuit Case Affects FMLA Rights (December 2005)
Definition of Protected Concerted Activity (June 2005)
Age Discrimination Claims Based on Disparate Impact (April 2005)
New Sexual Harassment Training Statute (December 2004)
Visa Revalidation Process Terminated (August 2004)
New Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing (May 2004)
Reevaluate Employee Bonus and Incentive Plans? (April 2004)
Department of Labor Proposed Regulations on COBRA Notices (March 2004)
Supreme Court To Consider Employer Policies (December 2003)
ADA Requirements in "Direct Threat" Determination (August 2003)
Labor Department Proposes Wage Changes (June 2003)
The Dangers of "Post-Injury" Drug and Alcohol Testing (February 2003)
NY Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gays and Lesbians (January 2003)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Expands Whistleblower Protection (November 2002)
Managing Workforce Reductions (October 2002)
ADA Doesn't Require Seniority Policy Bypass (May 2002)
Supreme Court Clarifies EEOC's Role in Arbitration (February 2002)
Lack of Age Discrimination Training Can Cause Employer Liability (January 2002)
Military Leave Obligations for Employers (December 2001)
Compelling Arbitration of Employee Claims (June 2001)
New OSHA Ergonomics Program Standard (January 2001)
Top 10 Best Employment Practices (December 2000)
Nonunion Employees Gain Right to Representation (August 2000)
Supreme Court Lowers Discrimination Bar (July 2000)
Leave and Reassignment under the ADA (March 2000)
Expand Healthcare Professional Liability InsuranceHealthcare Professional Liability Insurance
Expand Intellectual PropertyIntellectual Property
Expand Professional, D&O, and Fiduciary LiabilityProfessional, D&O, and Fiduciary Liability
Expand Workers Compensation InformationWorkers Compensation Information
Classifications and Cross-References
Expand Risk Mgt. and Multiline InformationRisk Mgt. and Multiline Information
Expand Risk Finance InformationRisk Finance Information
Expand Construction InformationConstruction Information
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
Expand Claims, Caselaw, LegalClaims, Caselaw, Legal
Expand Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Expand Glossary of Insurance & Risk Management TermsGlossary of Insurance & Risk Management Terms
Expand SearchSearch
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
System Requirements
Support

Downsizing Risk Management: RFOA as an Affirmative Defense

August 2008

As a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 06-1505, 554 U.S. ____ (June 19, 2008), it has become increasingly difficult for employers to obtain dismissal of disparate impact age discrimination claims on summary judgment.

by Paul J. Siegel, Esq. and Ana C. Shields, Esq.
Jackson Lewis LLP

Now, to dispose of such litigation prior to trial, an employer irrefutably must prove an affirmative defense that its policy or action was based on "reasonable factors other than age"—the "RFOA affirmative defense." Indeed, if a plaintiff sets forth a genuine issue of material fact as to any element essential to the affirmative defense, the case is likely to proceed to trial, exposing employers, and employment practices liability (EPL) insurers, to increased costs, risk and liability. Such claims are bound to increase as today's economy prompts layoffs.

Historical Analysis of Disparate Impact Age Claims

To understand the significance of Meacham, we must first consider the disparate impact analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in 2005 in Smith v. City of Jackson (see "Supreme Court Allows Age Discrimination Claims Based on Disparate Impact"). Typically, in a Title VII disparate impact case, a plaintiff first must identify a specific policy or practice with a statistically significant adverse impact on a protected group; a plaintiff need not allege discriminatory intent. Once a plaintiff has made this showing, the burden shifts to the employer to produce evidence that its policy (and the resultant impact) is supported by a legitimate business justification.

In City of Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer need not prove "business necessity" to rebut a plaintiff's prima facie case of age discrimination, but instead needs to demonstrate that the employer's decision was based on "reasonable factors other than age." However, the burden of proof as to this issue was left open.

The Supreme Court's Decision in Meacham

In 1996, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory discharged 31 employees during an involuntary reduction in force (RIF). To effectuate the RIF, the Laboratory instructed its managers to rate employees from 0 to 10 on "performance, flexibility, and criticality of … skills," and to add up to 10 points for "company service." The Laboratory also asked managers to identify employees with the lowest scores for layoff. The Laboratory first conducted a disparate impact analysis to determine whether the proposed layoffs would have an adverse impact on protected groups and reviewed the managers' selections to "assure adherence to downsizing principles." Nevertheless, of the 31 employees selected for layoff, 30 were over the age of 40, and therefore were protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York Human Rights Law. Ultimately, many of the terminated employees sued the Laboratory, alleging that the RIF had a disparate impact on older workers and therefore violated the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law.

A jury found against the Laboratory, awarding over $6 million in damages. The federal district court upheld the award. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, the Laboratory appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of the analysis set forth in City of Jackson, which it had decided that term. The Second Circuit then vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for the employer. In what was the perceived as a victory for employers, the Second Circuit (by 2-1 vote) held that it is the plaintiffs' ultimate burden to prove that the employer's justification is unreasonable. This time, it was the employees who appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that principles of statutory construction require the RFOA to be considered an affirmative defense for which the employer bears the burden of proof.

Reversing the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that an employer must produce evidence supporting the RFOA defense and also must persuade the fact-finder of its merit. In other words, the RFOA is to be treated as an affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of persuasion.

Practical Advice for Employers

Since the "RFOA" defense now is an affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof, it will be far more difficult for employers to dispose of cases through summary judgment. Following Meacham, an employer now must prove its RFOA and establish that, as a matter of law, a reasonable jury could not enter a verdict for plaintiff. While we will have to wait and see how lower federal courts implement Meacham, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "putting employers to the work of persuading fact-finders that their choices are reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend than if employers merely bore the burden of production" and recognized that this will sometimes affect the way employers make employment decisions.

Still, the Supreme Court recognized that plaintiff's initial burden is not "trivial" and that it "ought to allay some of the concern that recognizing an employer's burden of persuasion on an RFOA defense will encourage strike suits or nudge plaintiffs with marginal case into court…." Perhaps lower courts, based on this Supreme Court dicta, will impose a further burden on plaintiffs.

To reduce risks attendant to layoffs, including, but not limited to, disparate impact age discrimination claims, employers can:

  • Identify criteria for layoff selection. To do so, a layoff committee could take responsibility for overseeing the reduction.
  • Develop a layoff plan outlining how individuals will be selected for layoff to add consistency to the process.
  • Consider such common criteria for evaluating and selecting employees for reduction in force as: (a) a length of service or seniority; (b) status of worker (e.g., first eliminate all temporary, part-time, or contract employees); (c) preexisting job performance data; and (d) work functions remaining after a layoff.
  • Review layoff decisions to assess the risk of adverse impact on members of protected classes, as well as the justification for each selection decision.
  • Review prior written policies governing reductions in force to avoid legal challenges based on the failure to follow policies which defined the criteria for layoff selections.
  • Decide whether to obtain waivers of claims and releases.1
  • Determine whether statutory notices of layoff are required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109 (or possibly a state plant closing statute). If WARN applies, timetables for advance notification of employees must be followed.

Ana C. Shields is a senior associate in the Long Island office of Jackson Lewis. Since joining Jackson Lewis, Ms. Shields has practiced exclusively in the area of employment litigation and has been involved in proceedings before federal and state courts, the American Arbitration Association, and administrative agencies. She has advised employers on compliance with various state and federal laws affecting the workplace. Ms. Shields can be reached at or (631) 247-4657.


1For employees selected for layoff over 40 years of age (regardless of whether younger workers also were laid off), release agreements must comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). Drafting "group" release agreements which would withstand legal challenge is outside the scope of this article. For more information regarding preparing RIF releases, please contact the authors directly.


Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Advertisements
    
 
© 2000-2012 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.