Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New EEOC Rule Is Good News For Employers

By Scott T. Silverman on April 2, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Do you ever get the idea that all developments out of Washington, DC are bad for employers?  Well, at least in this instance, there is some good news for a change.

On March 29, 2012, the EEOC issued its Final Rule on Disparate Impact and “Reasonable Factors Other Than Age” Under The Age Discrimination in Employment Act. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/adea_rfoa_qa_final_rule.cfm

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously criticized the prior EEOC regulation, which had required employers to prove a “business necessity” for policies that had a disproportionate effect  on workers over 40.  Now, in response to a disparate impact claim, employers must only show that their practices are based on a “reasonable factor other than age,” which is the RFOA defense.  As explained by the EEOC, the RFOA defense is much easier to prove than “business necessity.”

The Final Rule does two (2) things: (1) it clarifies that the RFOA defense may be used in response to a disparate impact claim, not “business necessity”; and (2) it explains how the RFOA applies.  Importantly, an employer is only required to assert a RFOA defense when the employee has identified a specific employment policy or practice, and established that the practice harmed older workers substantially more than younger workers.  This is a tough standard for an employee to meet.  Moreover, even if the employee satisfies the test, to qualify for the RFOA defense, the employer must only show that it  reasonably designed and administered its policy to achieve a legitimate business purpose in light of the circumstances.

In summary, the employer must demonstrate: (1) that the criteria utilized in the policy or practice is related to a legitimate business purpose; (2) that managers and supervisor were given guidance or training on how to apply the factor to avoid discrimination; (3) that managers or supervisors were given limited discretion to assess employees subjectively; (4) that the adverse impact on older workers was assessed; and (5) the employer took steps to reduce harm to those in the protected age group.

Employers thus now have an easier defense to disparate impact age claims and specific guidelines to assert the defense.  Welcome news for once!

Photo of Scott T. Silverman Scott T. Silverman

Adept at navigating complex labor and employment matters, Scott Silverman is noted by Chambers USA for being “expeditious” and “excellent at providing all points of view.” His range of experience includes representation of employers in administrative proceedings, federal and state court litigation, and…

Adept at navigating complex labor and employment matters, Scott Silverman is noted by Chambers USA for being “expeditious” and “excellent at providing all points of view.” His range of experience includes representation of employers in administrative proceedings, federal and state court litigation, and arbitrations. Although he has worked on a variety of labor and employment issues throughout his career, Scott’s practice has emphasized labor management relations, employment discrimination, non-compete/trade secret, wage and hour, and retaliation claims. Complementing his litigation practice, he advises employers on day-to-day matters, and drafts manuals and contracts for his clients.a

Read more about Scott T. SilvermanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    HR Defense
  • Organization:
    Akerman LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo