Limiting an employee’s elegibility of overtime when he or she becomes eligible for retirement
MacKinnon v City of New York HRA, USCA, 2nd Circuit, 08-1171-cv
[N.B. This is a Summary Order by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect.]
John A. MacKinnon alleged that the New York City Human Resources Administration had unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of the federal the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621. MacKinnon contended that Human Resources had unlawfully discriminated against him because of his age when it (1) decided to reduce his overtime hours because of "concern over his age" and (2) because he was "singled out for such treatment."
A federal district court judge dismissed his complaint and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, observing that the factual record did not support any of MacKinnon’s claims.
Rejecting MacKinnon theory of unlawful discrimination, the Court of Appeals said that the record indicated that the City's Human Resources Administration had reduced his "overtime hours" for two reasons:
1. “because [MacKinnon] appeared on a list of New York City’s top fifty overtime earners (a politically unpopular distinction),” and
2. “because [MacKinnon] had become eligible for retirement and his pension benefits would be based on his compensation for his last twelve months of work.”
The court held that “An employment decision motivated by pension costs, even when strongly correlated with age, is not an ADEA violation,’ citing Hazen Paper v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604.