Source: cases/29usc623/f3d-914-480-kleber-v-carefusion.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_914/0480_01/index.html
By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/914/0480-01 name Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. cite 914 F.3d 480 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc date 2019-01-23 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_914/0480_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_914.jsonl sha1=26234b6a0ca7613aa62c8c15554c130dae3a07a2 chars=60000 law 29usc623 role applied posture en banc appeal from dismissal of an ADEA disparate-impact applicant claim result claimant-lost element impact-applicant-limit : satisfied [law] role applied scope merits variant applicant/outside-employee-impact-coverage fact @24..100 [supports] | After Dale Kleber unsuccessfully applied for a job at CareFusion Corporation held @2643..2746 | By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees. gloss The Seventh Circuit en banc majority applies its employee-only reading to an outside applicant’s subsection (a)(2) disparate-impact claim; no result on a subsection (a)(1) treatment claim is inferred. misfit Circuit-specific statutory coverage is represented by the LAW coverage-element ID. The IR contains dissenting material and reaches its 60,000-character cap; the selected holding is from the en banc majority, not a nationwide employee/applicant rule.