The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that an individual who was denied admission to an electrical worker apprentice program operated by the defendant, an IBEW Local 117 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund ("Fund"), could proceed on a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The Fund, which operates as a jointly-managed employee welfare benefit fund financed by local contractors with the National Association of Electrical Contractors, provides training to electrical apprentices. When the Fund takes on an apprentice, an "Apprenticeship Agreement" is signed that details terms and conditions of the individual's employment and training. The Fund monitors apprentice performance and retains disciplinary authority over them throughout the duration of the apprenticeship.

After being denied admission into the Fund's apprenticeship program, the applicant filed suit in federal court. The Fund subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that apprenticeship programs are not covered under the ADEA, and that even if they were, the Fund is not a labor organization, employer or employment agency as defined by the law. In concluding that EEOC regulations stating that the ADEA covers apprenticeships were entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the court reasoned that (1) the text of the ADEA is silent as to its applicability to apprenticeship programs, and (2) the agency's interpretation related to apprenticeship programs was reasonable because the failure to include them in the statute cannot be interpreted as an intentional exclusion where other specific programs or behavior are explicitly excluded, and Congress has failed to take any action in opposition to the EEOC's regulation, which has been in effect since 1996. In concluding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Fund is an "employer" or "employment agency" under the statute, the court reasoned that the question of whether an employee-employer relationship exists in a given circumstance centers around the amount of control an employer has over an individual, and there is evidence suggesting that the Fund retains substantial control over apprentice work. As such, the court reasoned, summary judgment was improper and the plaintiff was entitled to proceed on his claim. Read more.