United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018-04-11
29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: appeal from pleading dismissal of pension amendment challenge; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The LAW catalogue expressly lacks a full pension-accrual model. Neither the existence of an age-neutral plan nor compliance with subsection (i) is relabeled a failure to identify a neutral practice or proof of no statistical disparity. ERISA claims are separate.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — not reached (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / meritsThe actual pension-accrual holding is under section 623(i), not the catalogue’s ordinary subsection (a)(2) impact route. No generic age-disparity merits outcome is inferred. | pension/section-623-i-compliance | He acknowledges that the plan as a whole, and the 2012 amendment, is age-neutral, for pension eligibility is distinct from age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [7646:7773] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1.The Northern Trust pension plan, both before and after the 2012 amendment, complies with § 623(i). Benefits depend on the number of years of credited service and the employee's salary, not on age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10329:10525] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
In other words, a pension plan that complies with § 623(i) does not violate the ADEA.
Teufel v. Northern Trust Co. — 887 F.3d 799 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
In other words, a pension plan that complies with § 623(i) does not violate the ADEA.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10243:10328] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1.These are conditional statutory qualifications, not an actuarial compliance finding. Teufel's pinned sentence supports (i)(4) compliance, not a freestanding f(2) defense. An (i)(1) assessment must examine all relevant (i)(2)-(10) conditions; this core formula does not independently model every hybrid-conversion violation.