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
According to Employer, the employer required all employees to lift 50 pounds overhead ten times in 30 seconds, and older workers said this had a substantial adverse effect on them.
According to Mr. Waxman, company management recognized that the lifting requirement could expose the firm to an age‑discrimination lawsuit under the ADEA.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Kennedy asked whether there is a distinction between “business necessity” and “business reasonableness” regarding the employer’s lifting requirement under the ADEA.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Clifford B. Meacham)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent (Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory)
The respondents argue that they are not entitled to deference and that there is no disparate‑impact liability under the ADEA.
According to Mr. Waxman, management was aware that the lifting policy could lead to an age‑discrimination lawsuit.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether there is a distinction between “business necessity” and “business reasonableness.”
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the argument is simply to affirm the lower court regardless of who bears the burden, or whether it truly addresses the legal question before the Court.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts raised questions about the legal standards concerning business necessity versus business reasonableness in the context of the ADEA.
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.
- 62c6f153fa5962a1044c-r1-66826b97bf560093.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.