- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
- Date Filed: November 6, 2018
- Case #: 17-587
- Judge(s)/Court Below: GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except KAVANAUGH, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Petitioners John Guido and Dennis Rankin were fired from their full-time jobs as firefighters. They were the two oldest firefighters at the time, and sued their former employer claiming age discrimination. The Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to specific types of employers. As defined in the statute, an employer is one who engages “in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term [employer] also means . . . a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no attendant numerosity requirement with respect to States or political subdivisions. On appeal, the unanimous Supreme Court agreed. The dispositive phrase for the Court was the term “also means.” A plain reading of that phrase creates a separate, additional category of employers. That means that a further plain reading of the new category of employers shows that the law does not require a specific number of employees in order for ADEA to apply. Important to the Court was the fact that the phrase “also means” appears “dozens of times throughout the U.S. Code,” which has usually suggested an additional category. Lastly, the Court noted that the FLSA has very similar definitional provisions and, in so holding with respect to ADEA, aligned the textual meaning of both statutes. AFFIRMED.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioners John Guido and Dennis Rankin were fired from their full-time jobs as firefighters. They were the two oldest firefighters at the time, and sued their former employer claiming age discrimination. The Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to specific types of employers. As defined in the statute, an employer is one who engages “in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term [employer] also means . . . a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no attendant numerosity requirement with respect to States or political subdivisions. On appeal, the unanimous Supreme Court agreed. The dispositive phrase for the Court was the term “also means.” A plain reading of that phrase creates a separate, additional category of employers. That means that a further plain reading of the new category of employers shows that the law does not require a specific number of employees in order for ADEA to apply. Important to the Court was the fact that the phrase “also means” appears “dozens of times throughout the U.S. Code,” which has usually suggested an additional category. Lastly, the Court noted that the FLSA has very similar definitional provisions and, in so holding with respect to ADEA, aligned the textual meaning of both statutes. AFFIRMED.