Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls

AND · 29usc623:impact-applicant-limit

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.

Exact element source

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [327:564] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.

Routes and case patterns

Curated routes and observed case patterns
Route	Definition	Merits instance blocks	Distinct merits cases	Examples (up to 3 cases per count group)
_whole accepted; provisional (1 case)	The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element.	1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	1	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) · applied/merits · counted Pattern: applicant/outside-employee-impact-coverage

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
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 Corporation Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_914.jsonl#/f3d/914/0480-01`; Unicode character offsets [24:100] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `30d2e13ce22f23a8cd68b23cbe5a9996abaa1d484ea89b0fe0d5b6469402b2a1`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) 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`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

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.