A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- AND Age-based notice or advertisement
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment
Gross, 557 U.S. 167 (2009), governs §623(a)(1). A motivating-factor showing alone does not shift persuasion to the employer. Direct and circumstantial proof are available; McDonnell Douglas is a proof framework, not the statute or an inflexible universal pleading checklist.
4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — not pretext/grandbabies-remark-and-younger-replacement 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied pretext/inadequate-qualification-comparison 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/931/0786-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not reduction-in-force/retirement-reference-without-decision-link 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/934/0447-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not - AND Judicial impact requirement of significant causal 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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 01 /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied - AND Agency referral discrimination
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan
Statutory alternatives: (A) a bona fide seniority system without an evasion purpose; (B)(i) the prescribed equal-benefit/cost condition or (B)(ii) a voluntary early-retirement incentive consistent with the Act. The defendant bears proof. Both seniority and benefits forbid age-based involuntary retirement as stated; the additional failure-to-hire prohibition applies to (B), not automatically to every seniority system. Pension accrual compliance belongs in pension-safeguards, not an unconditional f(2) exemption.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Narrow bona fide occupational qualification
Section 623(f)(1) statutory defense; employer must justify age qualification, not rely on stereotypes or ordinary preference. Detailed safety/BFOQ evidentiary variants are outside this core catalogue.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Displayed scope and specialized exclusions
Models core (a)-(f) practices, (i)(1) pension accrual with conditional (i) safeguards, (j) public-safety and §631(c) executive retirement. Full (l)-(n) benefit-coordination and tenured-faculty incentive rules, detailed (i)(10) actuarial/conversion claims, and federal-sector §633a litigation remain outside these core formulas. Foreign-employer/control coverage under (h), §630 citizenship/employee definitions and enforcement prerequisites must also be checked; none is displaced by these merits formulas.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Wage reduction to comply
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Employer agency or union advertiser
Apply the relevant §630 covered-entity definition; employer-only numerical coverage is not imposed on every kind of entity.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Covered employment agency
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Employer coverage and exclusions
Employer status is statutory, not established merely by quoting §623. Individual liability, sovereign immunity and employment status need jurisdiction-specific analysis; coverage does not itself waive state sovereign immunity.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan
Section 623(i)(1) identifies these pension-plan actors independently of advertising. Apply the relevant §630 entity definitions; no notice, advertisement or publication is required.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Covered labor organization
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Hiring discharge or employment terms
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) discharge Termination or reduction in force. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot discharge/employer-terminated-worker 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied hiring Refusal to hire or promote. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot terms Compensation, terms, conditions or privileges; hostile environment requires the separate judicial severity/pervasiveness inquiry. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot - AND Charge filing waiver and remedies
Enforcement is not another merits element. Wrolstad applied a 300-day deferral-state deadline to unequivocal notice of a threat to sue. Federal §633a procedures and Babb causation are separate; see NOTES scope map.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) appeal/age-claims-abandoned 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/925/1240-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural
charge-accrual/unequivocal-waiver-enforcement-notice 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — applied/procedural
- EXCEPTION Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement
Cross-section statutory exception only to qualifying compulsory retirement; no exemption from all discrimination protections for anyone called an executive. The §623 text anchor is the discharge hook, not a fabricated §631 quotation.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives
Conditional gate for (a), (b), (c), (e), including agency, union and advertising routes. This is a disjunction of applicable defenses, not an assumption that every actor has every defense. Benefit coordination under (l)-(n) requires separate specialist analysis as disclosed in catalogue-scope.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) foreign-conflict Apply foreign-law only where compliance would violate the specified foreign workplace law. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot other-factor Apply rfoa only to a legally cognizable impact theory; unavailable for intentional treatment or using age itself as the limit. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot qualification Apply bfoq only to the necessary occupational age qualification. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot seniority-benefit Apply benefit-plan only to observing a qualifying system/plan and subject to its hiring/retirement limits and defendant burden. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot - EXCEPTION Foreign workplace conflict with local law
§623(f)(1); also inspect §623(h) control and foreign-employer rules and §630(f) citizenship coverage. Mere foreign business convenience is not statutory conflict.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Good cause for employer discharge or discipline
Catalogue scope: employer discharge or disciplinary action under the disparate-treatment route only, subject to good-cause-scope. Not a general business-justification defense to hiring, non-disciplinary employment terms, agency referral/classification, union membership/referral, advertising, impact, retaliation or pension claims. A proffered reason can be rebutted as pretext; the claimant retains the ultimate Gross persuasion burden.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls
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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 01 /f3d/914/0480-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 — satisfied - AND Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice
Isolate the practice responsible for the disparity; workforce-wide age imbalance alone is insufficient. O’Brien held a benefits-liquidation rule applied to hundreds of employees actionable even though adopted once.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) benefit-liquidation/retirement-eligibility-condition 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied pension/section-623-i-compliance 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/887/0799-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — background/merits
- OR Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) defined-benefit Cessation of accrual or reduction of accrual rate because of age under (i)(1)(A). 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot defined-contribution Cessation of account allocations or reduction of allocation rate because of age under (i)(1)(B). 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot - AND Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance
These are conditional statutory qualifications, not an actuarial compliance finding. Teufel's pinned sentence supports (i)(4) compliance, not a freestanding f(2) defense. An (i)(1) assessment must examine all relevant (i)(2)-(10) conditions; this core formula does not independently model every hybrid-conversion violation.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) age-neutral-cap (i)(2) permits benefit or service/participation limits imposed without regard to age. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot compensated-employee (i)(5) applies only to the regulatory extent necessary to prevent discrimination favoring highly compensated employees. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot distribution-adjustment (i)(3) credits the prescribed actuarial equivalent of in-service distribution or the specified delayed-distribution adjustment, subject to Treasury regulations. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot hybrid-and-offset (i)(10)(B)-(G) impose special hybrid-plan interest, capital, conversion and termination conditions and specified offset/disparity and preservation rules; a plan cannot invoke these as unconditional permission to reduce accrual because of age. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot subsidies-and-normal-age (i)(6)-(8) govern disregarded early-retirement subsidies, permitted (m) plans, incorporated Treasury regulations and the specified normal-retirement-age rule. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot younger-comparison (i)(10)(A) permits comparison with an otherwise identical younger participant, using the prescribed accrued-benefit measures and subsidy disregard. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot - AND Opposition or participation
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) opposition Opposing an ADEA-unlawful practice; judicial good-faith/reasonableness limits apply. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot participation Charge, testimony, assistance or participation in ADEA investigation, proceeding or litigation. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot participation/eeoc-age-discrimination-charge 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/380/0783-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied - AND Age forty or older
The age floor comes from §631, not §623. A comparator or replacement may itself be over forty; substantially younger is the relevant inference, not membership outside the protected class.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement
Limited to the enumerated governmental employers, occupations, and hiring/discharge acts. It is not a general public-sector or public-safety BFOQ and does not excuse unrelated employment terms or retaliation.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Retaliatory causal connection
Require causal connection between protected conduct known to defendant and material adversity; ultimate retaliation liability requires the applicable but-for standard, not merely chronological sequence. Davis-Garett addresses the adversity standard, not an independent holding relaxing ultimate causation.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) causation/charge-followed-by-continuing-pattern 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/380/0783-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied - AND Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation
Davis-Garett applies Burlington Northern: harm need not change employment terms, but trivial slights do not suffice. Evaluate context and employer knowledge of protected conduct.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) retaliation/leave-and-termination-after-charge 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/380/0783-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied retaliation/transfer-denial-after-hotline-complaint 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/921/0030-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - DEFENSE Reasonable factors other than age
The employer bears production and persuasion on this affirmative defense (Meacham, 554 U.S. 84). Reasonableness differs from Title VII business necessity and does not demand the least discriminatory alternative. RFOA is not permission for intentional age discrimination.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) financial-purpose/eliminate-unemployment-plan-with-union-support 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/900/0923-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied - OR Membership classification referral or causing discrimination
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) inducement §623(c)(3) causing or attempting employer discrimination. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot membership Exclusion, expulsion or discrimination under §623(c)(1). 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot referral §623(c)(2) classification or referral affecting employment opportunity. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
29usc623:disparate-treatment
covered-employer & protected-age & employment-action & age-causation & !f-exceptions & !public-safety & !executive-retirementSection 623(a)(1) employer claim. The statutory exceptions are conditional defenses, not employer burdens to disprove discrimination in every case. The claimant retains ultimate persuasion; coverage and §626 prerequisites are separate from the merits.
29usc623:disparate-impact
covered-employer & protected-age & neutral-practice & age-disparity & !f-exceptionsSection 623(a)(2) disparate impact: isolate a neutral employment practice causing a significant age disparity, subject to the route-conditioned f-exceptions and the circuit-specific applicant-coverage constraint below. Intent and Gross treatment causation are not additional impact elements.
29usc623:retaliation
(covered-employer | covered-agency | covered-union) & protected-activity & retaliatory-adversity & retaliation-causationSection 623(d) is distinct from age discrimination. The protected conduct is opposition or participation; age bias is not the required retaliatory motive. For employer defendants the claimant must be an employee or applicant; agency defendants cover any individual, and union defendants cover members or applicants for membership, as subsection (d) specifies. The (f)(1)-(2) exceptions do not extend to subsection (d).
29usc623:agency-discrimination
covered-agency & agency-practice & protected-age & age-causation & !f-exceptionsSection 623(b) referral/classification discrimination; §630(c) defines covered employment agencies.
29usc623:union-discrimination
covered-union & union-practice & protected-age & age-causation & !f-exceptionsSection 623(c) membership, referral, or causing employer discrimination; §630(d)-(e) define labor-organization coverage.
29usc623:age-advertising
covered-advertiser & age-advertisement & !f-exceptionsSection 623(e) is a distinct prohibition on age-based notices/advertisements; do not confuse it with retaliation or administrative filing requirements.
29usc623:wage-reduction
covered-employer & compliance-wage-reduction & !f-exceptionsSection 623(a)(3) independently prohibits reducing an employee wage rate to comply with the ADEA.
29usc623:pension-accrual
covered-plan-actor & protected-age & pension-plan & pension-age-reduction & !pension-safeguardsSection 623(i)(1) separately prohibits age-based cessation or reduction of defined-benefit accrual or defined-contribution allocations. Its own subsection (i) qualifications govern; f-exceptions is not a blanket defense to this route. The catalogue models the (i)(1) core and identifies (i)(2)-(10) qualifications, not a complete actuarial test for hybrid-plan conversions.
Constraints
Apply the outside-applicant construction only when controlling precedent adopts it.
Kleber (Seventh Circuit en banc) and Villarreal (Eleventh Circuit en banc) construe (a)(2) to exclude outside applicants. Elsewhere determine controlling law before excluding a claimant; this is not a nationwide statutory exception. The preserved impact-applicant-limit ID is a judicial coverage element and is intentionally absent as an unconditional negative in the claim formula.
Apply the good-cause qualification only when the defendant acts as employer and the challenged employment action is discharge or discipline.
This conditional qualification belongs to the employer disparate-treatment route for discharge/discipline; it is not an unconditional negative conjunct in that route. Do not apply it to hiring or other non-disciplinary terms, agency referral/classification, union membership/referral, or the other claim routes. If an agency or union acts as an employer, assess its employer conduct under the employer route rather than importing this qualification into its separate agency or union route. The quoted f(3) words are unchanged; the catalogue does not replace ultimate age causation with acceptance of any asserted reason.
Match each statutory exception to the challenged act and theory under (a), (b), (c), or (e).
The f-exceptions gate is satisfied only if one applicable branch is proved. BFOQ requires a necessary age qualification; foreign-law requires an actual foreign-workplace legal conflict; seniority/benefits require all f(2) conditions. RFOA is available only for a legally cognizable disparate-impact theory using a non-age factor, never intentional age discrimination or an age-limited advertisement. Thus rfoa cannot defeat the intentional agency/union/treatment claims merely because the actor offers a business reason. No exception here applies to (d) retaliation or automatically overrides (i).