DEFENSE · 29usc623:rfoa
The employer bears production and persuasion on this affirmative defense (Meacham, 554 U.S. 84). Reasonableness differs from Title VII business necessity and does not demand the least discriminatory alternative. RFOA is not permission for intentional age discrimination.
Exact element source
where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than ageSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [3423:3494] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 3 observed cases | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 3 Satisfied 3; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 3 | O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Reasonable factors other than age | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law Reasonableness is decided on the plan rationale; this is an affirmative defense after a prima facie impact showing, not Title VII business necessity. | financial-purpose/eliminate-unemployment-plan-with-union-support | Caterpillar also hoped to avoid the expense of upgrading the unemployment plan's outdated administration system.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [21196:21308] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf.Recognizing that the union had resisted its prior attempts to eliminate the plan, Caterpillar offered to distribute the trust's $7.8 million to union members to secure their support.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [21309:21491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf.Caterpillar has satisfied its burden. The liquidation plan was justified by a reasonable factor other than age-several, actually.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [20848:20977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf. |
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Reasonable factors other than age | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law The prima facie disparate-impact case was not reviewed: the district court thought it "likely" established and this court affirmed on the defense alone. | blanket-refusal-to-employ-pension-annuitants-to-avoid-statutory-return-to-work-penalty | Despite these efforts, a monitoring error led Oakton to employ affected annuitants inadvertently; the mistake cost Oakton approximately $75,000 in penalties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [3466:3623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.But, after weighing the risk that another monitoring error could cost the college thousands of dollars, the council came to the view that it would be fiscally irresponsible to employ any annuitant, regardless of whether she was likely to become an affected annuitant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [4198:4465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.While evaluating how to respond to this situation, the president's advisory council considered the fact that some annuitants Oakton employed were not at risk of becoming affected annuitants under the second version of the statute (because there were caps on adjunct compensation and on the number of "lecture hour equivalents" adjunct faculty could teach per semester).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [3828:4197] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.To establish this affirmative defense, a defendant must show that the disparate impact was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose" and that it was "administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [8245:8599] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.The mere fact that the risk of a several-thousand-dollar penalty loomed large is enough, under these circumstances, to require a factfinder to conclude that defendants based the policy on an RFOA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [20933:21129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9. |
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Reasonable factors other than age | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law | payroll-reduction-and-pension-solvency-targeting-long-tenured-employees | VIESA sought to reduce government spending by reducing payroll while continuing to provide necessary public services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [350:467] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [14291:14503] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [14626:14873] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [9250:9577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.Because Section 7(k)'s cost-savings justification was reasonable, the Government is entitled to the RFOA defense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [10319:10432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, but Caterpillar raises an affirmative defense that its liquidation plan is based on a reasonable factor other than age. To prevail Caterpillar must show that its less favorable treatment of retirement-eligible employees was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer." 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(e)(1). This is a "relatively light burden." Karlo , 849 F.3d at 80. "Unlike the [Title VII] business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement." Smith , 544 U.S. at 243, 125 S.Ct. 1536.
O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, but Caterpillar raises an affirmative defense that its liquidation plan is based on a reasonable factor other than age. To prevail Caterpillar must show that its less favorable treatment of retirement-eligible employees was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer." 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(e)(1). This is a "relatively light burden." Karlo , 849 F.3d at 80. "Unlike the [Title VII] business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement." Smith , 544 U.S. at 243, 125 S.Ct. 1536.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [19946:20847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf.The employer bears production and persuasion on this affirmative defense (Meacham, 554 U.S. 84). Reasonableness differs from Title VII business necessity and does not demand the least discriminatory alternative. RFOA is not permission for intentional age discrimination.