Supreme Court Extends ADEA Coverage to Small State and Local Government Employers

2 Minute Read

November 7, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to state and local government employers, regardless of their size. In doing so, the Court unanimously adopted the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the statute when four other Circuits held the opposing position.

The case involved two firefighters who brought ADEA claims against their fire department. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the fire department did not meet the 20 employee threshold for coverage under the ADEA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the threshold did not apply to state and local governments.

The key statutory language disputed by the parties was the ADEA’s definition of “employer”:

"The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an
industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more
employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of
such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision
of a State . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 630(b).

The Court adopted a plain reading of the statute, holding that the phrase “also means” is an “additive rather than clarifying” phrase. The Court stated that “also” is a term of enhancement that essentially created another category of “employer”—i.e., state and local governments regardless of their size. The Court rejected the fire department’s argument that the definition’s first sentence sets the baseline definition and the second sentence simply clarifies that state and local governments are included so long as they have at least 20 employees.

While this decision does not apply to private employers, it is particularly notable for two reasons. First, the Justices adopted a plain reading of the statute and did so unanimously. Second, the case represents a rare situation in which the Supreme Court sided with the Ninth Circuit in an employment matter when all other Circuits deciding the issue were on the opposing side.

Tags: ADEA, Age Discrimination

Ryan M. Bates
Partner
+1 202 955 1596
Email | vCard | Bio | Posts
Ryan has distinguished himself as a nationwide litigator handling complex employment litigation, trade secret cases, and other high-stakes litigation. Ryan has litigated cases in the state and federal courts of 25 states. He has ...

You May Also Be Interested In

4 Minute Read

October 15, 2025

Seventh Circuit Rejects Lenient Two-Step “Lusardi” Standard for FLSA/ADEA Collective Action Notice

By Katherine P. Deegan

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a significant ruling for employers facing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective actions.

4 Minute Read

July 11, 2019

Attorney Asks Supreme Court to Review Seventh Circuit’s Interpretation of Disparate Impact Claims Under the ADEA

By Daniel J. Butler and Robert T. Dumbacher

In late January 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not allow outside job applicants to bring disparate impact claims. The plaintiff in the case, Dale Kleber, an attorney, is now asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.

Facts and Procedural History

3 Minute Read

June 27, 2017

ADEA’s 50th Anniversary Refocuses EEOC on Prevalence of Age Discrimination in the Workplace

By Amber M. Rogers

On June 14, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting entitled “The ADEA @ 50 – More Relevant Than Ever,” to commemorate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s 50th anniversary and to “explore the state of age discrimination in America today and the challenges it poses for the future.” Participants in the meeting included Victoria Lipnic, newly-appointed Chairman of the EEOC, and various workers’ advocates who provided their thoughts on the perceived increasing prevalence of age discrimination in the workplace. Despite the enactment of the ADEA a half-century ago, the participants cited various statistics demonstrating the difficulty still facing older individuals in the workplace. This discrimination faced by older workers in an aging-American workforce coupled with various statements by Chairman Lipnic regarding the ADEA are signals to employers that ADEA enforcement may receive an increased focus during the Trump administration. In a previous post, we discussed the impact of Chairman Lipnic’s appointment and the direction of the EEOC under her new leadership and highlighted that ADEA enforcement would be one of the agency’s main focuses.

7 Minute Read

October 18, 2016

Eleventh Circuit: Job Applicants May Not Sue For Disparate Impact Under § 4(a)(2) Of The ADEA

By Juan C. Enjamio

On October 5, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that an unsuccessful job applicant “cannot sue an employer for disparate impact [under § 4(a)(2) of the ADEA] because [an] applicant has no ‘status as an employee.’” Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., --- F.3d ---, No. 15-10602, 2016 WL 5800001, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016).

Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

You May Also Be Interested In

Search

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives