The Supreme Court held 2/24/04 that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not prohibit employers from favoring older employees over younger ones, so-called “reverse age discrimination.” The ADEA protects workers over age 40 from age discrimination. This case concerns a collective-bargaining agreement that eliminates retirement health benefits for employees except those who are currently over age 50. Thus, employees that are between the ages of 40 and 50—employees who are protected under the ADEA—would not receive retirement health benefits. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the agreement violates the ADEA, because in its view the ADEA prohibits all discrimination against employees, including discrimination in favor of older employees. The Supreme Court disagreed. It concluded that the ADEA’s structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statues conclusively demonstrate that Congress did not intend the ADEA to prohibit benefits that favor older workers over younger ones. This case is important to all employers that are covered by the ADEA.The NAM filed an amicus brief 3/21/03 urging the Supreme Court to take this action. We joined with the Equal Employment Advisory Council, the LPA, the U.S. Chamber, the American Benefits Council and the ERISA Industry Committee in asking the Court to take the case. The ruling could have undermined employer efforts to provide any health benefits to retirees. It could also have raised litigation concerns over a variety of other employment-related decisions whereby older workers are chosen for promotions or other employment actions for which younger employees over 40 are also eligible.