October Term 2004 · Docket 03-1160

Does the ADEA ban practices with disparate impact on older workers?

the sides that brought the case seek a disparate impact ban. The City argues the statute lacks this rule.

Official caption
Smith v. City of Jackson
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Goldstein argued the ADEA embodies Congress' determination against age discrimination.

    Mr. Goldstein stated the Act prohibits practices lacking reasonable business justification.

    Mr. Nager argued mere statistical correlations do not create a prima facie case.

    Justice Breyer questioned the practical application of the business necessity standard.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. the sides that brought the case argue the law bans practices that harm older workers without business justification. The City argues the statute only bans intentional discrimination. The dispute centers on statutory interpretation and lower court rulings.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 3, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to recognize a disparate impact claim under the ADEA.

The City wants the Court to reject the disparate impact theory.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the ADEA prohibits practices lacking reasonable business justification.

The City argues the statute does not contain a disparate impact provision.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if the lack of business justification is an affirmative defense.

Justice Kennedy asked if the regulation interprets the prohibitory section of the statute.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of federal age discrimination protections. It determines whether employers face liability for neutral practices that harm older workers. This affects hiring, compensation, and workforce composition decisions nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON