BRIGHT LINE RULE
A judicial rule that helps resolve ambiguous issues by setting a basic standard that clarifies the AMBIGUITY and establishes a simple response.
The bright line rule exists to bring clarity to a
law or regulation that could be read in two (or
more) ways. Often a bright line is established
when the need for a simple decision outweighs the
need to weigh both sides of a particular issue.
In the case of Knight v. Avon Products 2003,
SJC 08876, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court established a bright line rule for AGE DIS-
CRIMINATION. The plaintiff, who was over 40
years of age, was terminated from her position
and claimed that her termination was the result
of discrimination based on her age. The person
who was hired to replace the plaintiff, however,
was only 28 months younger. The defendant
argued that the plaintiff ’s age played no role in
the termination decision, adding that 28 months
is an insignificant difference. A trial court dis-
agreed, but the high court agreed with the
defendant. The court then went on to establish a
bright line figure of five years or more for a valid
age discrimination suit to be launched.
The court arrived at this figure because it
realized that to do otherwise could leave
employers open to lawsuits if they replaced a
worker with someone who was only two years
younger. To avoid endless argument, the five-
year figure was established. If there was a pattern
of discriminatory behavior toward an employee,
it might be possible to see a two- or three-year
difference as enough to tip the balance against
that employee. In the general course of employ-
ment issues, however, the court felt that this par-
ticular bright line would set a useful guideline
for both employees and employers.
In Ohio v. Robinette 519 U.S. 33, 117 S.Ct.
417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347, 1996, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed a bright line rule established by
the Ohio State Supreme Court. Robinette was
stopped by a deputy sheriff for speeding. He
complied with the deputy’s instructions; he
handed over his driver’s license and stepped out
of the car. A computer check of the license came
up clean, and the deputy merely warned him not
to speed again. Then he asked Robinette
whether he had any drugs in his car. Robinette
replied no and the deputy asked if he could
search the car. Robinette agreed. The deputy
found some marijuana and a pill that appeared
to be a controlled substance, and he arrested
Robinette.
Robinette pleaded no contest and was found
guilty, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed
his conviction because he had been unlawfully
detained. The Ohio Supreme Court, citing the
FOURTH AMENDMENT, agreed and established
the bright line rule that claimed the police were
required to tell a citizen he was free to go before
they could obtain a voluntary search consent.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the deci-
sion, concluding that the Fourth Amendment
had not been violated. Robinette had been law-
fully detained for speeding, and the deputy had
the right to ask him out of the car. As for the
bright line rule, the Court rejected that as well.
Under the Fourth Amendment, consent to a
search must be voluntary, but being told one is
free to go is not the sole criterion for determining
whether the search is voluntary. Thus, the bright
line established by the state court was not valid.
Interestingly, one justice noted that the state court
might have been able to establish a valid bright line rule if it had based the rule on state rather than federal law, since states have the freedom to
impose stricter restrictions on police activity than
the federal government’s restrictions.
The case of Federal Election Commission v.
Christian Action Network 110 F. 3d. 1049 (4th
Circuit 1997) upheld a bright line rule established
earlier that protects free speech. The FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION sued the Christian
Action Network for using its corporate funds to
pay for a television commercial that attacked
President BILL CLINTON and Vice President AL
GORE for their support of GAY AND LESBIAN
RIGHTS. Under the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, it is illegal for a corporation to use
treasury funds to campaign for or against a specific
presidential candidate. The U.S. Supreme
Court later stated that to ensure the law did not
violate free speech, it had to follow a bright line:
As long as a corporation did not use certain
words in its communications, those communications,
were protected and lawful. The words
include “vote for,” “ vote against,” “cast your ballot,”
“defeat, reject,” and “support.”
None of the bright line words appeared in
the Christian Action Network’s commercial. It
may have been unwelcome and, for many, offensive,
but it did not violate any election campaign
regulations. The bright line rules in this case
were established to ensure that there would be
no political CENSORSHIP. The Supreme Court
differentiated between speech that advocated
issues and speech that advocated election
results.
FURTHER READINGS
O’Dell, Larry. 1996. “FEC Again Loses Case against Group
That Ran Ads on Clinton.” Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star
(August 4).
Willing, Richard. 2000. “Police to Get Broader Authority on
Stops.” USA Today (January 13).
