Blogs

Practice Areas

Employment MediationLabor & Employment
array(1) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1682 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(242) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:51" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-10-06 21:45:51" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_title"]=> string(16) "Daniel C. Zamora" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(15) "daniel-c-zamora" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2016-04-22 19:34:51" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2016-04-22 19:34:51" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(43) "http://weinwp.dev/attorneys/daniel-c-zamora" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(9) "attorneys" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }

Attorneys

Disparate Impact Does Not Protect Job Applicants

November 4 2016

By Daniel C. Zamora

On October 5, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit held in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., that an unsuccessful job applicant cannot sue a prospective employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for a disparate impact claim.  In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit reverses its November 30, 2015 decision holding the opposite.

The ADEA generally protects employees aged 40 and older from discrimination in employment on the basis of their age.  A job applicant who is denied employment because of a practice that is discriminatory on its face, can sue under the ADEA under a disparate treatment claim, by proving that the employer acted with the intent of discriminating against the job applicant.  However, Villarreal now forecloses the possibility that an applicant can state an ADEA claim against a practice that, while not discriminatory on its face, has the effect of disproportionately discriminating against persons aged 40 and older.

The 49-year-old plaintiff in Villarreal applied online with R.J. Reynolds for the position of a territory manager and was screened out by a recruiting contractor under R.J. Reynolds’ guidelines which provided that a “targeted candidate” was someone only “2-3 years out of college” and to “stay away from” an applicant who had been “in sales for 8-10 years.”  After receiving no response to his first application, the plaintiff applied five more times over the next two years and was rejected each time.  The plaintiff filed a collective action on behalf of all job applicants aged 40 and older who were rejected for the position of territory manager.  R.J. Reynolds moved to dismiss plaintiff’s disparate impact claim on the basis that it was not statutorily authorized under the ADEA.  The district court dismissed the claim, finding that the ADEA only authorized disparate impact claims by employees, not applicants.

To read the rest of this article, visit the HRUSA page at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/disparate-impact-does-not-protect-job-applicants/