Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2005.

The Court held that although the theory of disparate impact set forth in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) is also applicable under the ADEA, the ADEA is narrower as it permits “otherwise prohibited” actions “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.”[1][2][3] In a revised employee pay plan, the City of Jackson in Mississippi increased the salaries of all police officers and dispatchers.

The Court reasoned that the ADEA and Title VII contain identical language concerning unlawful discrimination.

However, the ADEA is narrower and permits “otherwise prohibited” actions “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.”[2][6][7][8] The Court further ruled that the petitioners in this case failed to set forth a valid disparate impact claim, as they did not identify any specific test or practice in the pay plan that had an adverse impact on older employees.

The Court noted that the City’s explanation that the differentiation in raise proportions was based on its goal to make junior officers’ salaries more competitive in the market provided “reasonable factors other than age.”[1][2][4]