Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 21, 1993 TAG: 9304210072
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Such firings would violate the age-bias law only if age, as opposed to years of service, were an actual reason for the firing, the court ruled unanimously in the case of a Massachusetts man fired at age 62 shortly before he would have earned a pension.
An employee fired under these circumstances could sue under federal pension law, however, the court noted.
"A decision by the company to fire an older employee solely because he has nine-plus years of service and therefore is `close to vesting' would not constitute discriminatory treatment on the basis of age," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
"It is the very essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence decline with old age," O'Connor wrote. "When the employer's decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears."
She said an employee's age is different from years of service, and relatively young workers can earn a pension if it takes only 10 years to become vested - meaning they are owed a pension.
But employers could violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act if they use pension status as a "proxy for age" by assuming that workers who are about to earn their pensions tend to be older, O'Connor said.
Walter F. Biggins was fired by the Hazen Paper Co. in Holyoke, Mass., in 1986 shortly before qualifying for his pension. Hazen Paper employees' pensions become vested at 10 years of service.
Biggins sued, contending that his firing violated federal age-bias and pension laws.
A federal jury awarded Biggins $1.8 million in damages, most of it a double-damages award for willful age discrimination. But a federal judge reduced the award to $560,000.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had reinstated most of the damage award and the jury's finding of willful wrongdoing.
In other action, the court:
By a 5-4 vote in a New Jersey newspaper case, said new owners may depreciate and seek tax deductions for such "intangible assets" as subscribers, just like machinery or inventory, if their value and duration can be determined accurately.
Justice Harry Blackmun said the Newark Morning Ledger Co. "has borne successfully its substantial burden of proving that `paid subscribers' constitutes an intangible asset with an ascertainable value and a limited useful life, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy."
The dispute stemmed from the 1987 merger of the Herald Co. with the Newark Morning Ledger Co., owner of The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., the largest newspaper in the Newhouse group.
Heard arguments in a North Carolina case over new congressional districts created with black majorities to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. The justices are expected to decide by July whether the new districts violate white voters' constitutional rights.
by CNB