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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| financial-purpose/eliminate-unemployment-plan-with-union-support | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | 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| Caterpillar also hoped to avoid the expense of upgrading the unemployment plan's outdated administration system.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [21196:21308] (end exclusive); SHA-256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. |
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.
/f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
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.