Source: cases/29usc623/f3d-916-242-bryan-v-govt-of-the-vi.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_916/0242_01/index.html
And although an employer may not use a direct proxy for age to discriminate surreptitiously against older workers, an employee's tenure (without more) is not such a direct proxy.
In sum, because Section 7(k) was motivated by factors other than age-factors that are not direct proxies for age-it does not violate the ADEA's bar on disparate treatment.
A reasonable, non-age factor that explains an employer's decision therefore precludes disparate impact liability, Smith , 544 U.S. at 239, 125 S.Ct. 1536, and the burden is on the employer to demonstrate the factor's reasonableness, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. , 554 U.S. 84, 91, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008).
Because Section 7(k)'s cost-savings justification was reasonable, the Government is entitled to the RFOA defense.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/916/0242-01 name Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. cite 916 F.3d 242 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit date 2019-02-19 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_916/0242_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl sha1=2467e7570f50019f7cc92eddb59c38374a2b1db5 chars=15584 opinion maj : majority by Hardiman @0..15584 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA disparate treatment and disparate impact (class action); judgment for government employer on a stipulated record in a bifurcated liability trial affirmed by CA3 result claimant-lost element age-causation : not-satisfied [law] route age-correlated-factor pattern extra-pension-contribution-imposed-on-employees-with-thirty-years-credited-service fact @776..958 [neutral] | And those declining to retire had to contribute an additional 3% of their salary to the Government Employees Retirement System (the System) starting at the end of those three months. fact @6391..6450 [cuts-against] | VIESA does not discuss age or any stereotypes based on age. fact @7779..8081 [cuts-against absent] | But while it is true that every Government employee with thirty years of service is over 40 (because the Government does not hire nine-year-olds), Bryan and Thomas point to nothing in the record to establish that all System members in the protected class have achieved thirty years of credited service. rule @5863..6041 | And although an employer may not use a direct proxy for age to discriminate surreptitiously against older workers, an employee's tenure (without more) is not such a direct proxy. held @8340..8511 | In sum, because Section 7(k) was motivated by factors other than age-factors that are not direct proxies for age-it does not violate the ADEA's bar on disparate treatment. ? basis: decided as a legal question on a stipulated record (plenary review), but the court also rests on what plaintiffs "have not demonstrated" from that record; [law] kept defense rfoa : satisfied [law] route _whole pattern payroll-reduction-and-pension-solvency-targeting-long-tenured-employees fact @350..467 [supports] | VIESA sought to reduce government spending by reducing payroll while continuing to provide necessary public services. fact @14291..14503 [supports] | Using the increased contribution to encourage employees to retire from the Government payroll directly reduces costs as those retirees cease to draw Government salaries and begin to draw pensions from the System. fact @14626..14873 [cuts-against] | Although the contribution does not result in direct cost-savings for the Government because the System is a separate fisc, the 3% contribution does lower costs for that System-to which the Government must contribute directly to prevent insolvency. rule @9250..9577 | A reasonable, non-age factor that explains an employer's decision therefore precludes disparate impact liability, Smith , 544 U.S. at 239, 125 S.Ct. 1536, and the burden is on the employer to demonstrate the factor's reasonableness, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. , 554 U.S. 84, 91, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008). held @10319..10432 | Because Section 7(k)'s cost-savings justification was reasonable, the Government is entitled to the RFOA defense.