United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019-06-07
29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: appellate review of disparate-impact issues; result: not-decided; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The merits remand concerns racial impact under Title VII only. Recording the statistics issue as an ADEA comparator or hypothetical merits holding would misidentify the claim actually before the court.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✗ not · waivedNot counted: background/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. District of Columbia — 925 F.3d 1240 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · waived (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Charge filing waiver and remedies | not Excluded from merits counts background / procedural basis: waived The appellate opinion expressly says the age claims were abandoned. Its Title VII remand is not an ADEA impact determination. | appeal/age-claims-abandoned | They have abandoned their age-based claims, but appeal the summary judgment in the Agency's favor on the race discrimination claims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1240-01; Unicode character offsets [458:590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dc535aa31e88637826cf208c657e8fc07733b37482a2c676945a5b22e355303c. |