Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2008Docket #973937
171 L. Ed. 2d 283 128 S. Ct. 2395 554 U.S. 84 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5029 76 U.S.L.W. 4488 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 400 91 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,231 103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 908 Employment Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) disparate-impact lawsuit, the employer must not only produce evidence for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense but also bear the burden of persuading the jury that the defense is valid.

Legal Significance: The case clarifies that the RFOA provision in the ADEA is an affirmative defense, placing the burden of persuasion on the employer in disparate-impact cases, resolving a circuit split and solidifying the structure of proof for such claims.

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), a government contractor, implemented an involuntary reduction in force. To select employees for layoff, KAPL directed its managers to score subordinates on criteria including “performance,” “flexibility,” and “critical skills.” Of the 31 salaried employees ultimately laid off, 30 were at least 40 years old. A group of these employees sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging the layoff process had a disparate impact on older workers. The plaintiffs’ statistical expert testified that the subjective criteria of “flexibility” and “critical skills” had the strongest statistical correlation with the age-skewed outcomes. A jury found for the plaintiffs on their disparate-impact claim. The Second Circuit, after a remand in light of Smith v. City of Jackson, reversed, holding that the plaintiffs bore the burden of persuasion to show that KAPL’s reliance on its criteria was unreasonable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine which party bears the burden of persuasion for the RFOA defense.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: In a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), does the employer bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense?

Yes, the employer bears both the burden of production and the burden Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. U

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

In a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), does the employer bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense?

Conclusion

This decision solidifies the structure of proof for ADEA disparate-impact claims by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni

Legal Rule

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the "reasonable factors other Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis centered on the statutory structure of the ADEA. It Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore ma

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) disparate-impact case, the
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More