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; orSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [327:564] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| applicant/outside-employee-impact-coverage | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/914/0480-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/914/0480-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 | 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
interpretation
By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.
/f3d/914/0480-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019
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.