John Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10764
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Guido (46) and Dennis Rankin (54) were full-time firefighter captains employed by Mount Lemmon Fire District and were terminated in 2009 as the two oldest full-time employees.
- Each filed ADEA charges with the EEOC, which found reasonable cause; they sued the Fire District in 2013 for age discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Fire District, concluding it was not an “employer” under the ADEA because it lacked 20 employees.
- The central statutory provision at issue is 29 U.S.C. § 630(b): it defines “employer” first as a “person…who has twenty or more employees” and then in a separate sentence lists (1) agents of such a person and (2) States and political subdivisions.
- Parties disputed whether the 20-employee minimum in the first sentence also applies to the second-sentence categories (political subdivisions).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the 20-employee minimum does not apply to political subdivisions and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADEA’s 20-employee threshold in § 630(b) applies to political subdivisions | § 630(b) creates distinct categories; the second sentence expressly covers States and political subdivisions regardless of size | The statute is ambiguous; historical context and prior circuit precedent support reading the 20-employee minimum into the second sentence, excluding small political subdivisions | The 20-employee minimum does not apply to political subdivisions; the Fire District is an ADEA "employer" |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1975) (discussing Congress’s 1974 extension of ADEA coverage to government employers)
- Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 472 U.S. 353 (1985) (noting ADEA extension to government and to employers with at least 20 workers)
- Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (courts enforce plain statutory text where language is unambiguous)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) (reluctance to depart from plain statutory language except to avoid destroying statutory scheme)
- Kelly v. Wauconda Park Dist., 801 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1986) (held § 630(b) ambiguous and did not apply the 20-employee rule to political subdivisions)
- Palmer v. Ark. Council on Econ. Educ., 154 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 1998) (considered § 630(b) ambiguous)
- E.E.O.C. v. Monclova Twp., 920 F.2d 360 (6th Cir. 1990) (treated § 630(b) as ambiguous regarding agents and political subdivisions)