In the case of James O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a plaintiff does not need to prove that he was replaced by someone outside the protected class to establish a discriminatory dismissal claim. Instead, it is sufficient for him to show that he was replaced by someone significantly younger and thus demonstrate age as a determining factor in his termination. The court held this view because ADEA's primary purpose is not necessarily about protecting people over 40 from being displaced by younger workers but rather preventing discrimination on grounds of age itself.

In the dissenting opinion for James O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). He argued that to establish a prima facie case under ADEA, it is not enough to show that an employee was replaced by someone significantly younger; rather, it must be shown that they were replaced by someone outside the protected class - i.e., under 40 years old. In this case, since both O’Connor and his replacement were over 40 and thus within the protected class defined by ADEA, he believed there could be no violation of law even if age was a factor in employment decision. Scalia criticized what he saw as judicial rewriting of clear statutory language based on perceived policy considerations.