3 Supreme Court Cases That Could Affect Older Workers

By: Kenneth Terrell   Published October 01, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court started its 2018 term this week. The eight justices currently on the court will hear arguments in several cases that could affect the rights of older workers. Among

the key issues in those suits are:

Private employers who run businesses that have fewer than 20 employees are exempt from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which is the federal law that protects older workers

from age discrimination. In Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, the issue is whether small public agencies also are excluded from ADEA requirements. In 2009, two firefighters — ages 46 and

54 at that time — were fired by the Mount Lemmon Fire District in Arizona. The firefighters filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the ADEA, and the federal district court ruled in favor

of the fire department. But the federal circuit court ruled for the two firefighters.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have a wide impact for older adults working for local and state governments across the country. If the high court decides these small agencies don’t have to

follow the federal age discrimination law, these workers will have to rely on whatever protections their states’ laws provide.

More than 2 million people apply for Social Security disability benefits each year. To be eligible, a medical condition must prevent the applicants from working — either in their current

positions or other jobs they might be qualified to do — for at least 12 straight months. In many cases, an administrative law judge decides whether a disability applicant is capable of

working. In Biestek v. Berryhill, the Supreme Court will decide whether an administrative judge can rely solely on expert testimony, without the underlying data on which the testimony is

based, or if more evidence is needed.

Michael Biestek, a carpenter, applied for Social Security disability benefits when he was unable to work due to a degenerative disc disease. When he was originally denied benefits, Biestek

asked for an administrative hearing to appeal the decision. In that hearing, a vocational expert testified that there were a variety of jobs still available to Biestek despite his condition.

But when the former carpenter asked the expert to provide more information about the jobs, the administrative law judge said the expert did not have to respond. The judge ultimately denied

Biestek disability benefits.