Source: cases/29usc623/f3d-907-460-dayton-v-oakton-cmty-coll.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_907/0460_01/index.html
To establish this affirmative defense, a defendant must show that the disparate impact was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose" and that it was "administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer."
The mere fact that the risk of a several-thousand-dollar penalty loomed large is enough, under these circumstances, to require a factfinder to conclude that defendants based the policy on an RFOA.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/907/0460-01 name Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. cite 907 F.3d 460 (2018) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit date 2018-10-11 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_907/0460_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl sha1=41bf61f94230528ac915300553de1c3f3f572d71 chars=34581 opinion maj : majority by Flaum @0..34581 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA disparate impact (class of annuitant adjunct faculty); summary judgment for community college affirmed by CA7 result claimant-lost defense rfoa : satisfied [law] route _whole pattern blanket-refusal-to-employ-pension-annuitants-to-avoid-statutory-return-to-work-penalty fact @3466..3623 [supports] | Despite these efforts, a monitoring error led Oakton to employ affected annuitants inadvertently; the mistake cost Oakton approximately $75,000 in penalties. fact @4198..4465 [supports] | But, after weighing the risk that another monitoring error could cost the college thousands of dollars, the council came to the view that it would be fiscally irresponsible to employ any annuitant, regardless of whether she was likely to become an affected annuitant. fact @3828..4197 [cuts-against] | While evaluating how to respond to this situation, the president's advisory council considered the fact that some annuitants Oakton employed were not at risk of becoming affected annuitants under the second version of the statute (because there were caps on adjunct compensation and on the number of "lecture hour equivalents" adjunct faculty could teach per semester). fact @5153..5210 [neutral] | Each of those individuals was over the age of fifty-five. rule @8245..8599 | To establish this affirmative defense, a defendant must show that the disparate impact was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose" and that it was "administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer." held @20933..21129 | The mere fact that the risk of a several-thousand-dollar penalty loomed large is enough, under these circumstances, to require a factfinder to conclude that defendants based the policy on an RFOA. ? basis: summary judgment for the employer on its own affirmative defense (a reasonable jury "would be compelled" to find an RFOA); [law] is the nearest basis, [proved] was wrong because no trier of fact found it gloss The prima facie disparate-impact case was not reviewed: the district court thought it "likely" established and this court affirmed on the defense alone.