United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019-01-23
29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: en banc appeal from dismissal of an ADEA disparate-impact applicant claim; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Circuit-specific statutory coverage is represented by the LAW coverage-element ID. The IR contains dissenting material and reaches its 60,000-character cap; the selected holding is from the en banc majority, not a nationwide employee/applicant rule.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law The Seventh Circuit en banc majority applies its employee-only reading to an outside applicant’s subsection (a)(2) disparate-impact claim; no result on a subsection (a)(1) treatment claim is inferred. | applicant/outside-employee-impact-coverage | After Dale Kleber unsuccessfully applied for a job at CareFusion CorporationSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_914.jsonl#/f3d/914/0480-01; Unicode character offsets [24:100] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30d2e13ce22f23a8cd68b23cbe5a9996abaa1d484ea89b0fe0d5b6469402b2a1.By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_914.jsonl#/f3d/914/0480-01; Unicode character offsets [2643:2746] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30d2e13ce22f23a8cd68b23cbe5a9996abaa1d484ea89b0fe0d5b6469402b2a1. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.
Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. — 914 F.3d 480 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_914.jsonl#/f3d/914/0480-01; Unicode character offsets [2643:2746] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30d2e13ce22f23a8cd68b23cbe5a9996abaa1d484ea89b0fe0d5b6469402b2a1.Kleber en banc (7th Cir. 2019) excludes outside applicants from §623(a)(2), consistent with the Eleventh Circuit; §623(a)(1) treatment claims for applicants remain available. This jurisdiction-sensitive boundary is part of neutral-practice coverage, not a bar to all ADEA hiring claims.