United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018-08-13
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA disparate impact; summary judgment for employer affirmed by CA8; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 |
|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The RFOA defense, raised as Eggers's third argument, was not reached. | no-statistical-evidence-of-impact-from-bank-refusal-to-sponsor-conviction-waivers | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01; Unicode character offsets [13863:14112] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79.[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) ].Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01; Unicode character offsets [7408:7770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01; Unicode character offsets [15250:15475] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79. |
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 — not reached (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe court held only that the district court had correctly identified the two challenged practices; it did not decide whether they satisfy the specific-practice requirement, and disposed of the case on the absence of statistical evidence. | Unspecified route | The district court identified exactly the two policies Eggers challenged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01; Unicode character offsets [10935:11008] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79. |
| Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Age forty or older | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | worker-over-forty | In 2005, Richard, then age 61, applied to work at Wells Fargo.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01; Unicode character offsets [277:339] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79. |