Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Smith: The ADEA Permits a Narrow Disparate-Impact Claim

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 11, 2026

Decision: Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).

Smith v. City of Jackson defines both the availability and limits of disparate-impact liability under the ADEA.

A pay plan favored junior officers

Older police and public-safety officers challenged a compensation plan that gave proportionally larger raises to workers with less seniority.

Disparate impact was cognizable

The Court read the ADEA to permit challenges to neutral practices that disproportionately harm older workers.

The practice must be identified precisely

A plaintiff must isolate the specific employment practice causing the statistical disparity rather than attack a plan generally.

Reasonable non-age factors defeated liability

The City’s effort to make junior salaries competitive was a reasonable factor other than age, so the judgment for the City stood.

Key takeaways

• Identify the exact neutral practice.
• Use reliable age-group data.
• Test the employer’s stated non-age factor for reasonableness.
• Separate disparate treatment from disparate impact.