United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018-10-11
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA disparate impact (class of annuitant adjunct faculty); summary judgment for community college affirmed by CA7; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element 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
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayton v. Oakton Cmty. Coll. — 907 F.3d 460 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Reasonable factors other than age | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law The prima facie disparate-impact case was not reviewed: the district court thought it "likely" established and this court affirmed on the defense alone. | blanket-refusal-to-employ-pension-annuitants-to-avoid-statutory-return-to-work-penalty | Despite these efforts, a monitoring error led Oakton to employ affected annuitants inadvertently; the mistake cost Oakton approximately $75,000 in penalties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [3466:3623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [4198:4465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [3828:4197] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [8245:8599] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/0460-01; Unicode character offsets [20933:21129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5043412ef26714417d47ab54c4c7200930370a4cf31f61fc8c01bfd928e10de9. |