Price Waterhouse: Alive and Well Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Mercer Law Review
The authors of this article argue the Price Waterhouse still applies to ADEA cases despite the fact the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overruled part of that decision as applied to Title VII. The narrower purpose of the ADEA itself, as described by the Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, and the ADEA's origins in the FLSA, differentiate the ADEA from Title VII, especially with respect to attorney fees, and support the continued vitality of Price Waterhouse in ADEA cases. Part II describes the changing demographics in the United States and how a growing pool of older workers necessarily increase the importance of the ADEA. This section also focuses on the number of ADEA charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission ("EEOC"). Part III analyzes the origin of the specific provisions of the ADEA and Title VII resulting from the ADEA's hybrid construction and origins in the FLSA. Part IV reviews the evidentiary burdens of proof in ADEA cases and examines the mixed motive analysis in particular. This article concludes with the authors' contention that Price Waterhouse, as applied to the ADEA, survives the 1991 amendments to Title VII because Congress's silence as to the role of mixed-motive analysis under the ADEA, the differing structures of the remedies provisions under the ADEA and FLSA in contrast to Title VII's construction, and the different remedial goals of the ADEA
H. Lane Dennard, Jr. & Kendall L. Kelly, Price Waterhouse: Alive and Well under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 51 Mercer L. Rev. 721 (2000).
Institutional Repository Citation
Dennard, H. Lane Jr. and Kerew, Kendall, "Price Waterhouse: Alive and Well Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act" (2000). Faculty Publications By Year. 23.
This document is currently not available here.