Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity

AND · 29usc623:age-disparity

Statistical comparison must fit the affected labor pool and challenged practice. O’Brien recognizes older-subgroup comparisons within the over-forty class; do not present that circuit treatment as a universal rule.

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; 2 observed cases	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.	2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	2	Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Pattern: no-statistical-evidence-of-impact-from-bank-refusal-to-sponsor-conviction-waivers O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted Pattern: statistical-impact/retirement-eligible-subgroup

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Pattern	Exact source quotations
Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. — 899 F.3d 629 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))	Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity	not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The RFOA defense, raised as Eggers's third argument, was not reached.	no-statistical-evidence-of-impact-from-bank-refusal-to-sponsor-conviction-waivers	However, even assuming that the Section 19 disqualification does not bar Eggers's claim, Eggers failed to present statistical evidence of any kind that the two challenged policies created a disparate impact among Wells Fargo employees older than 40. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01`; Unicode character offsets [13863:14112] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) [a] plaintiff ... must first establish a prima facie case ... by identifying a specific employment practice and then presenting statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question caused the plaintiff to suffer adverse employment action because of his or her membership in a protected group [ (employees age 40 or older) ]. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01`; Unicode character offsets [7408:7770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 1 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Because Eggers failed to present any statistical evidence of a disparate impact, and because we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, summary judgment for Wells Fargo is appropriate for lack of a prima facie case. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_899.jsonl#/f3d/899/0629-01`; Unicode character offsets [15250:15475] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `9855b8d0892e09e81320ba71b6518dbad8a641e88d89836ea5969498f0266b79`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)
O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))	Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity	satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law This is the court’s prima facie disparate-impact determination, not a final liability finding or a nationwide endorsement of every subgroup theory.	statistical-impact/retirement-eligible-subgroup	This is borne out by the statistics: the mean age of the retirement-eligible employees is 61.57 compared with a mean age of 47.81 for those ineligible to retire. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01`; Unicode character offsets [13920:14081] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Only 1.4% of employees under the age of 55 were eligible for retirement compared with 93.4% of those 55 and older. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01`; Unicode character offsets [14167:14281] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) In light of the substantial statistical disparities between the ages of retirement-eligible and nonretirement-eligible employees, the plaintiffs have established a prima facie disparate-impact case. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01`; Unicode character offsets [14282:14480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

A disparate-impact claim involves "employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins , 507 U.S. 604, 609, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs must demonstrate a "significant" age-based disparity to establish a prima facie case. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC , 849 F.3d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 2017).

O'Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. — 900 F.3d 923 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))

A disparate-impact claim involves "employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins , 507 U.S. 604, 609, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs must demonstrate a "significant" age-based disparity to establish a prima facie case. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC , 849 F.3d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 2017).

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_900.jsonl#/f3d/900/0923-01; Unicode character offsets [13216:13685] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a033ea2b8166d55b594539c0a4bfdbfabfd4236926a51cff302f1d045dc73bcf.