On Wednesday, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an 8-3 vote that disparate impact as defined under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not apply to failed job applicants.
Case Background
Richard Villarreal applied for a position as a territory manager for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in November, 2007. Villarreal later discovered that Reynolds’ applicant screening process included guidelines that targeted candidates who are “2-3 years out of college” and to “stay away from” candidates with several years of prior sales experience. Villarreal later filed a lawsuit against Reynolds with the assistance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in June 2012.
Villarreal’s case was filed on the grounds of age discrimination acted by Reynolds. However, one of Villarreal’s claims involving “disparate impact,” as defined by the Act, specifies that disparate impact only applies to persons classified as employees. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for Villarreal’s claims expired after a 180 day period, thus allowing Reynolds’ attorneys to request the case to be dropped. For these reasons, Federal Judge Richard Story dismissed the case in March, 2013.
Later in December, 2015, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court reviewed the case. In a 2-1 vote, the judges presiding over the case ruled that Villarreal was “entitled to equitable tolling of the ADEA’s limitations.” In its 2015 ruling, the Appeals Court concluded that the Act did allow for disparate treatment claims to be filed by job applicants. However, this case was later reheard by the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016.
The 11th Appellate Court’s Final Ruling
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only covers employees and not job applicants under disparate impact claims. Additionally, the Court stated that “Villarreal is not entitled to equitable tolling of his claim of disparate treatment because he admitted facts that establish that he did not diligently pursue his rights.” The Court has since remanded the case to Georgia District Court to address if Villarreal’s claim may still be considered timely under the continuing-violation doctrine of the Act.
Although, the Court did agree that job applicants could sue for disparate treatment. Specifically, the Act reads that age discrimination for disparate treatment involves employers who “fail to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual… with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.”
