Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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
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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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