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; 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| statistical-impact/retirement-eligible-subgroup | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | 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.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.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. |
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).
/f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
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.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.