Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis
Hazen Paper: Pension Status Is Not Automatically a Proxy for Age Under the ADEA
Decision: Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993).
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins was decided by the Supreme Court on April 20, 1993. It reviewed a verdict under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after a 62-year-old employee was discharged only weeks before his pension would have vested based on years of service.
Disparate treatment requires age motivation
The protected trait itself must actually play a role in the decision; an action can be unfair or unlawful for another reason without being age discrimination.
Years of service and age are distinct
The two often correlate, but an employer’s focus on service-based vesting does not automatically establish reliance on stereotypes about older workers.
Proxy evidence can still matter
Pension status may support an ADEA inference if the employer uses it as a practical stand-in for age or the surrounding evidence shows age was determinative.
Willfulness follows its own standard
Liquidated damages—an additional monetary award for a willful violation—require knowledge or reckless disregard of whether the conduct violated the ADEA. The Court applied the Thurston standard without requiring an additional showing of outrageous conduct. It vacated and remanded for further consideration of the evidence.
Key takeaways
- Identify the precise factor the decisionmaker actually used.
- Separate age, tenure, salary, and pension status in the evidence.
- Test whether a correlated factor served as a proxy for age.
- Evaluate ERISA and contract theories independently from the ADEA claim.
Assess age discrimination and pension vesting claims
Our firm evaluates ADEA and FEHA employment claims involving age bias, tenure, and pension status. Bring your termination notice, pension vesting schedule, personnel evaluations, and internal communications for a complete file review. Call (949) 343-9735 or email office@mishrax.com.