Court protects workers against age bias

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave the nation's older workers stronger protections against age bias Thursday, ruling that employers who are sued must prove their layoff policies are reasonable and do not have an unfair impact on employees because of their age.

The 7-1 decision puts private companies and public agencies on notice that they must defend the criteria they use for layoffs if the cutbacks disproportionately affect older workers.

For example, when employers see a need to reduce the workforce, they sometimes rate their workers in deciding who is to be let go. Usually, the ratings focus on specific skills and can include subjective criteria such as "flexibility" or "creativity."

In the past, the Supreme Court has said older workers can sue for age discrimination when layoffs hit older workers hardest. But until Thursday, it was unclear whether the workers who were suing had to prove the criteria used by the company were unfair, or instead whether the company had to prove they were reasonable.

The justices decided on the latter.

"The burden is properly placed on the employer," said Justice David Souter. "There is no denying [this] makes it harder and costlier to defend" against such lawsuits, he added.

Advocates for older workers, including AARP, hailed the decision. They said it would strengthen the rights of laid-off workers to challenge supposedly "neutral" corporate policies that fall heavily on the older employees.

Several business groups predicted it would lead to more lawsuits, and management lawyers called the ruling a significant change in the law.

The burden "is now squarely on the shoulders of employers," said Sheryl Willert, a lawyer in Seattle. She cautioned employers who rely on subjective factors for deciding on layoffs: "It is more imperative than ever that employers engage in very clear evaluation and analysis and remove as much subjectivity as possible from business decisions."

In other cases Thursday, the Supreme Court:

• Declared a mentally ill defendant can be judged competent to stand trial, yet incapable of acting as his own lawyer. The 7-2 decision said states can give a trial judge discretion to force someone to accept an attorney to represent him if the judge is concerned that the trial could turn into a farce.

• Struck down a California law that blocked use of state money for anti-union activities.

• Said courts should consider an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when reviewing the denial of an employee's health- or disability-benefits claim.

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.