## Facts

- Hazen Paper Company employed Walter F. Biggins as technical director beginning in 1977.
- In 1986, the company discharged Biggins at age 62, shortly before his pension would have vested under a 10-year vesting schedule.
- Biggins alleged the discharge was intended to prevent his pension benefits from vesting and sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and ERISA § 510, along with state-law claims.
- A jury found for Biggins on ADEA and ERISA liability and found the ADEA violation “willful,” which would permit liquidated damages.
- The district court entered judgment for Biggins on liability but granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on ADEA willfulness.
- The court of appeals affirmed ADEA and ERISA liability and reinstated the jury’s willfulness finding, giving significant weight to evidence of pension-vesting interference.

## Issues

1. Whether terminating an older employee to prevent vesting of pension benefits tied to years of service, without more, constitutes disparate-treatment age discrimination under the ADEA.
2. Whether the ADEA “willfulness” standard for liquidated damages defined in *Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston* applies to fact-specific, individual disparate-treatment decisions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that interference with service-based pension vesting, standing alone, does not establish an ADEA disparate-treatment violation.
- The Court held that the *Thurston* willfulness standard (“knew or showed reckless disregard” that the conduct was prohibited by the ADEA) applies to all ADEA disparate-treatment cases, not only cases involving formal or facially discriminatory policies.
- Because the court of appeals treated pension interference as largely sufficient to prove age discrimination, the Court required reconsideration of ADEA liability under the correct age-motivation framework and, if necessary, reconsideration of willfulness.

## Legal Principles

- In ADEA disparate-treatment cases, liability turns on whether age actually motivated the employer’s decision and had a determinative influence on the outcome.
- Factors such as pension status, seniority, years of service, or salary are analytically distinct from age; acting on those factors is not automatically age discrimination.
- An employer may incur ADEA liability if it uses pension status or similar factors as a proxy for age, or if the evidence shows age independently motivated the decision.
- Improper conduct under another statute (including ERISA) does not itself establish age discrimination under the ADEA.
- ADEA liquidated damages require a willful violation, defined by the employer’s knowledge or reckless disregard as to whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that ADEA disparate-treatment claims require proof that age itself drove the adverse action, and that terminating an employee to prevent service-based pension vesting is not per se age discrimination; it also confirmed that the *Thurston* willfulness standard governs all ADEA disparate-treatment cases and remanded for reconsideration under these rules.


Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993)