This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioners argue that disparate impact should be an available method of proof in age‑discrimination cases under the statute.
According to Petitioners, petitioners allege that the employer’s reduction‑in‑force had a disparate impact on older workers.
According to Petitioner, petitioners contend that mixed‑motive analysis raises a question about whether an employer’s illegal motive caused an illegal action.
Respondents argue that the statutory language requires an intent requirement and cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the statute.
According to Respondents, respondents assert that the phrase “reasonable factors other than age” signals an intent requirement, distinguishing disparate‑treatment from impact cases.
According to Respondent, respondents maintain that the reasonableness of a nondiscriminatory factor is a permissible consideration for a judge or jury.
According to Respondent, respondents argue that the case turns on whether the statute embraces a disparate‑impact test.
- [1] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 3
- [2] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 6
- [3] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 19
- [4] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 24
- [5] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 33
- [6] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 36
- [7] eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdf, p. 37
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court asked whether disparate impact alone can give rise to a permissible inference of intentional discrimination in age‑discrimination cases.
According to Justice Scalia, justices questioned whether an intent requirement is necessary for age‑discrimination claims.
According to Justice Souder, justice Souder questioned whether the inclusion of the word “reasonable” implies an “unreasonable” defense and what that means for liability.
Justice Breyer asked whether an employer with an unreasonable criterion that harms older workers would face a sanction.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioners argue that disparate impact is an available method of proof in age discrimination cases.
According to Petitioners, petitioners allege that the employer’s reduction in force had a disparate impact on older workers.
According to Petitioner, petitioners contend that mixed‑motive analysis raises a question about whether the employer’s illegal motive caused an illegal action.
Respondent Position
Respondents argue that the statutory language requires an intent requirement and cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the statute.
According to Respondents, respondents assert that the phrase “reasonable factors other than age” signals an intent requirement, distinguishing disparate‑treatment from impact cases.
According to Respondent, respondents maintain that the reasonableness of a nondiscriminatory factor is a permissible consideration for a judge or jury.
According to Respondent, respondents argue that the case hinges on whether the statute embraces a disparate‑impact test.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- eca594b5727cc84b2fd2-r1-3ad9b9391c00f25f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.