A federal appeals court has ruled that job applicants cannot sue an employer for promulgating policies and practices that discriminate in hiring on the basis of age.
The ruling is a major setback for victims of age discrimination in hiring, which for years has been widespread, overt and unaddressed.
The full 11th Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta, in a ruling dated Oct. 5, ruled the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 “makes it clear that an applicant for employment cannot sue an employer for disparate impact because the applicant has no “status as an employee.’” The ruling overturns an earlier 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel holding that the ADEA permits older job applicants to sue for age discrimination in hiring. The 11th circuit has jurisdiction over cases in Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
The ruling graphically illustrates the lack of protection afforded to older workers compared to victims of other types of employment discrimination. Job applicants are permitted to file so-called disparate impact lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin.
The ruling came in the case of Richard M. Villarreal who, beginning at age 49, applied seven times over the Internet for a position as a territory manager at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. He was never hired and he was never told why his applications were rejected.
The 11th Circuit’s ruling deprives older job applicants of a way to counter modern-day age discrimination in hiring, including the use of covert Internet screening tools.
After being contacted by a whistle blower, a law firm told Villarreal that Reynolds had contracted with two recruiting firms to develop internet screening tools to target young job applicants for hire and screen out applicant having eight to ten years of experience.
Villarreal filed suit in 2010 against Reynolds and a staffing firm, Pinstripe, Inc., alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination.
The disparate treatment theory requires the plaintiff to prove the employer engaged in intentional age discrimination whereas the disparate impact theory argues the employer adopted a seemingly neutral policy or practice that had a disproportionate and adverse impact upon older job applicants. The plaintiff is not required to show intentional discrimination under the disparate impact theory.
Villarreal’s case now hangs by a thin thread.
The appeal’s court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Villarreal’s disparate treatment claim because it was filed after the statute of limitations expired. The Court agreed that Villarreal failed to exercise “diligence’ because he did not ask Reynolds why he was not hired in 2007. The appeals court remanded the case back to the lower court so Villarreal could pursue a “continuing-violation” theory that would render his 2007 claim timely.
The appeals court said the ADEA does not permit job applicants to use the so-called disparate impact theory, which challenges company-wide employment policies and practices that adversely affect older job applicants. The court refused to defer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s argument that the ADEA does permit disparate impact lawsuits “because we do not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute when the text is clear.”
The ruling eliminates any means of redress for thousands of older job applicants who applied for positions at Reynolds only to have their applications diverted into a digital trash can sight unseen.
The case is Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 15-10602,(11th Cir.).
