## Facts

- General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. renegotiated a collective-bargaining agreement with the UAW in 1997.
- The agreement eliminated retiree health benefits for employees who would retire in the future, except it preserved benefits for then-current workers aged 50 or older.
- Employees aged 40–49, though within the ADEA’s protected age range, were excluded from the benefit promise.
- The employees filed an EEOC charge alleging unlawful age discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
- After unsuccessful conciliation, the employees sued under the ADEA and parallel state law.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADEA’s prohibition on discrimination “because of such individual’s age” in 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) permits claims by relatively younger protected workers (ages 40–49) alleging that an employer favored older protected workers (age 50+).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that the ADEA does not prohibit an employer from favoring older employees over relatively younger employees, even when all are at least 40.
- The Court rejected the employees’ “reverse age discrimination” theory under the ADEA.

## Legal Principles

- The ADEA’s ban on age discrimination targets employer actions that advantage relatively younger workers by disadvantaging relatively older workers; it does not create a cause of action for relatively younger workers complaining of favoritism toward older workers.
- Statutory interpretation of the ADEA requires reading § 623(a)(1) in context with the Act’s structure, stated purposes, and the historical understanding of “age discrimination” at enactment, which focused on bias against older workers.
- The ADEA’s coverage threshold (protecting those aged 40 and above) supports an asymmetrical design aimed at protecting older workers, not at equalizing treatment among all age differences.
- An agency interpretation that treats the ADEA as barring all age-based distinctions within the protected age group is not controlling when inconsistent with the statute’s best reading.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the ADEA does not authorize claims by workers aged 40–49 challenging an employer’s decision to favor older workers, because the statute addresses discrimination against older employees in favor of younger ones, not the reverse.


General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004)