Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

899 F.3d 629 (2018) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2018-08-13

civil; ADEA disparate impact; summary judgment for employer affirmed by CA8 (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 2 Age forty or older satisfied conceded
    In 2005, Richard, then age 61, applied to work at Wells Fargo.
  2. 6 Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity not no-evidence
    [a] plaintiff ... must first establish a prima facie case ... by identifying a specific employment practice and then presenting statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question caused the plaintiff to suffer adverse employment action because of his or her membership in a protected group [ (employees age 40 or older) ].
  3. 6 Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity not no-evidence
    However, even assuming that the Section 19 disqualification does not bar Eggers's claim, Eggers failed to present statistical evidence of any kind that the two challenged policies created a disparate impact among Wells Fargo employees older than 40.
  4. 6 Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity not no-evidence
    Because Eggers failed to present any statistical evidence of a disparate impact, and because we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, summary judgment for Wells Fargo is appropriate for lack of a prima facie case.