Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Smith: The ADEA Allows Disparate-Impact Claims Subject to the RFOA Defense

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 13, 2026

Smith v. City of Jackson involved older police and public-safety officers who challenged a compensation plan that gave proportionally larger raises to officers with less than five years of service.

The ADEA reaches some neutral practices with age-based effects

The Court read the statute to permit disparate-impact claims by workers protected because they are age forty or older, while recognizing textual differences from Title VII.

A plaintiff must isolate the particular practice

The employees could not rely on a general assertion that the plan was relatively less generous to older workers. The claim had to identify the specific test, requirement, or practice producing the disparity.

Reasonable factors other than age provide a defense

The city sought to make junior-officer salaries competitive with regional police departments and used tenure and rank to allocate raises. The Court found that choice reasonable even if another plan might have reduced the impact.

The employees lost on the pleaded record

Recognition of the cause of action did not establish liability. Current cases must apply the statutory RFOA provision, governing regulations, reliable statistics, and later burden-allocation precedent.

Key takeaways

• Identify the specific neutral practice rather than only an overall disparity.
• Use a reliable comparison group and statistically sound age-impact analysis.
• Document the non-age objective and why the chosen method was reasonable.
• Evaluate less harmful alternatives without substituting business necessity for the RFOA standard.