2004 Supreme Court term

AZEL P. SMITH, ET AL. v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI ET AL.

Dockets 03-1160Argued
AI-generated independent summary

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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bars employment practices that cause a significant disparate impact on older workers when those practices lack a reasonable business justification.

According to Mr. Nager, respondents contend that statistical correlations with age alone do not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.

According to Fifth Circuit, respondents also argue that the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) provision is part of the ADEA, not Title VII.

Background and question before the Court

The central issue is whether the ADEA requires a reasonable business justification for employment practices that have a disparate impact on older workers.

What each side argues

Petitioners

According to Petitioners, the ADEA prohibits employment practices that have a significant disparate impact on older workers if those practices lack a reasonable business justification.

According to Mr. Goldstein, petitioners cite EEOC cases, such as the Francis W. Parker case, as examples of rules that prohibit hiring individuals who previously earned a higher salary, illustrating the need for a business justification.

Respondents

According to Mr. Nager, statistical correlations with age alone do not create a prima facie case of age discrimination.

According to Fifth Circuit, the “reasonable factors other than age” provision is found in the ADEA, not in Title VII.

According to Mr. Goldstein, because the statute refers to something otherwise unlawful, it cannot be interpreted like the Price Waterhouse mixed‑motive doctrine.

What happened at oral argument

Counsel for the petitioners was Thomas C. Goldstein; counsel for the respondents was Glen D. Nager.

The case was submitted to the Court.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

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.

  • 773031f113ce29c6c273-r1-4dee917af5717fd9.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.