United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019-02-19
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA disparate treatment and disparate impact (class action); judgment for government employer on a stipulated record in a bifurcated liability trial affirmed by CA3; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element age-causation: basis: decided as a legal question on a stipulated record (plenary review), but the court also rests on what plaintiffs "have not demonstrated" from that record; [law] kept
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — not · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law | extra-pension-contribution-imposed-on-employees-with-thirty-years-credited-service | VIESA does not discuss age or any stereotypes based on age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [6391:6450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.But while it is true that every Government employee with thirty years of service is over 40 (because the Government does not hire nine-year-olds), Bryan and Thomas point to nothing in the record to establish that all System members in the protected class have achieved thirty years of credited service.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [7779:8081] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.And although an employer may not use a direct proxy for age to discriminate surreptitiously against older workers, an employee's tenure (without more) is not such a direct proxy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [5863:6041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.In sum, because Section 7(k) was motivated by factors other than age-factors that are not direct proxies for age-it does not violate the ADEA's bar on disparate treatment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [8340:8511] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474. |
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — 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 | payroll-reduction-and-pension-solvency-targeting-long-tenured-employees | VIESA sought to reduce government spending by reducing payroll while continuing to provide necessary public services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [350:467] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.Using the increased contribution to encourage employees to retire from the Government payroll directly reduces costs as those retirees cease to draw Government salaries and begin to draw pensions from the System.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [14291:14503] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.Although the contribution does not result in direct cost-savings for the Government because the System is a separate fisc, the 3% contribution does lower costs for that System-to which the Government must contribute directly to prevent insolvency.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [14626:14873] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.A reasonable, non-age factor that explains an employer's decision therefore precludes disparate impact liability, Smith , 544 U.S. at 239, 125 S.Ct. 1536, and the burden is on the employer to demonstrate the factor's reasonableness, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. , 554 U.S. 84, 91, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [9250:9577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.Because Section 7(k)'s cost-savings justification was reasonable, the Government is entitled to the RFOA defense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [10319:10432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474. |