Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

General Dynamics v. Cline: Age Discrimination in Employee Benefits Case, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

A landmark supreme court case, general dynamics v. Cline, where the court ruled on the age discrimination in employment act (adea) and its application to a collective bargaining agreement that eliminated health benefits for retired employees under 50 years old. The case involved a dispute between general dynamics, a company, the union, and a group of respondent employees who were protected by the adea but not promised the benefits. The legal arguments, court decisions, and the implications of the case for age discrimination in employment and employee benefits.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/11/2012

amulya
amulya 🇮🇳

5

(3)

123 documents

1 / 1

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. v. CLINE
et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
No. 02-1080. Argued November 12, 2003--Decided February 24, 2004
A collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner company and a union eliminated the company's
obligation to provide health benefits to subsequently retired employees, except as to then-current workers at
least 50 years old. Respondent employees (collectively, Cline)--who were then at least 40 and thus protected
by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), but under 50 and so without promise of the
benefits--claimed before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the agreement violated
the ADEA because it "discriminate[d against them] ... because of [their] age," 29 U. S. C. §623(a)(1). The
EEOC agreed, and invited the company and the union to settle informally with Cline. When they failed, Cline
brought this action under the ADEA and state law. The District Court dismissed, calling the federal claim one of
"reverse age discrimination" upon which no court had ever granted relief under the ADEA, and relying on a
Seventh Circuit decision holding that the ADEA does not protect younger workers against older workers. The
Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that §623(a)(1)'s prohibition of discrimination is so clear on its face that if
Congress had meant to limit its coverage to protect only the older worker against the younger, it would have
said so. The court acknowledged that its ruling conflicted with earlier cases, but criticized those decisions for
paying too much attention to the general language of Congress's ADEA findings. The court also drew support
from the EEOC's position in an interpretive regulation.
Held: The ADEA's text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the
statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. Pp. 3-17.

Partial preview of the text

Download General Dynamics v. Cline: Age Discrimination in Employee Benefits Case and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. v. CLINE

et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH

CIRCUIT

No. 02-1080. Argued November 12, 2003--Decided February 24, 2004

A collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner company and a union eliminated the company's obligation to provide health benefits to subsequently retired employees, except as to then-current workers at least 50 years old. Respondent employees (collectively, Cline)--who were then at least 40 and thus protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), but under 50 and so without promise of the benefits--claimed before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the agreement violated the ADEA because it "discriminate[d against them] ... because of [their] age," 29 U. S. C. §623(a)(1). The EEOC agreed, and invited the company and the union to settle informally with Cline. When they failed, Cline brought this action under the ADEA and state law. The District Court dismissed, calling the federal claim one of "reverse age discrimination" upon which no court had ever granted relief under the ADEA, and relying on a Seventh Circuit decision holding that the ADEA does not protect younger workers against older workers. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that §623(a)(1)'s prohibition of discrimination is so clear on its face that if Congress had meant to limit its coverage to protect only the older worker against the younger, it would have said so. The court acknowledged that its ruling conflicted with earlier cases, but criticized those decisions for paying too much attention to the general language of Congress's ADEA findings. The court also drew support from the EEOC's position in an interpretive regulation.

Held: The ADEA's text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. Pp. 3-17.