Age Discrimination About 200 General Dynamics employees in Ohio and Pennsylvania sued their company after the company said in 1997 that it would end retirement health benefits for workers trade unionists under the age of 50. Among them was Dennis Cline, a materials expert driver at the Land Systems company's tank plant in Lima, Ohio. The age discrimination case stems from a dispute between defense contractor General Dynamics and the United Auto Workers eliminated the company's provision of health benefits to subsequently retired employees, except for current workers who were at least 50 years at the time of modification of the agreement. Employees over age 40 filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging age discrimination in violation of the ADEA and seeking protection under § 623(a)(1) . Among the groups that supported the company's position were the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO and the Society for Human Resource Management. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had argued that the law was "crystal clear" in protecting people over 40 from discrimination, even when it favored older workers. Following the settlement's collapse, Cline and others filed a lawsuit in federal court, which found the claim to be one of "reverse age discrimination." The district court denied the request, but a divided Sixth Circuit panel reversed, reasoning that the prohibition of §623(a)(1), which covers discrimination against “any individual…because of age of such individual,” alleged the plaintiffs' cause of action. The EEOC supported the workers, saying its own regulations prohibit such distinctions. At issue was Congress' intent when it passed the Age Discrimination Act of 1967. The law refers to "age" in many contexts, including some that suggest lawmakers were intent on adopting age-neutral policies age in all cases. Judge Souter rejected the EEOC's reading of the statute to allow a "reverse discrimination" claim, suggesting that compliance with the agency's reading is suggested only where there is no clear sense of congressional intent. Feb. 25, 2004 -- the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that the language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and its purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes demonstrate that the intent of the Congress in enacting the law was to prohibit the discriminatory preference of younger workers over older workers (within the protected class), but not prevent an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one.