C · Law–case relations
Part 1 lists the elements of the law. Part 2 lists each case; its numbered items use the same numbers as the elements, with the holding and the quoted passage it rests on. Quotations are verbatim; labels are derived annotations, not the source of truth. Muted blocks are not counted as merits applications.
1 · Elements of 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634
- Employer coverage and exclusions AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer- - Age forty or older AND
because of such individual's age; - Hiring discharge or employment terms AND
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; - Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment AND
because of such individual's age; - Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives EXCEPTION
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section - Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement EXCEPTION
(j) Employment as firefighter or law enforcement officer It shall not be unlawful for an employer which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate agency to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any - Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement EXCEPTION
to discharge any individual - Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice AND
(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 - Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity AND
(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 - Covered employment agency AND
It shall be unlawful for an employment agency - Covered labor organization AND
It shall be unlawful for a labor organization- - Opposition or participation AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual - Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual - Retaliatory causal connection AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual - Agency referral discrimination AND
(b) Employment agency practices It shall be unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual's age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual's age. - Membership classification referral or causing discrimination OR
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his age; - Employer agency or union advertiser AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish - Age-based notice or advertisement AND
It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organizati - Wage reduction to comply AND
(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter. - Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan AND
an employer, an employment agency, a labor organization, or any combination thereof - Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan AND
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, it shall be unlawful for an employer, an employment agency, a labor organization, or any combination thereof to establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan which requires or permits- - Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction OR
(A) in the case of a defined benefit plan, the cessation of an employee's benefit accrual, or the reduction of the rate of an employee's benefit accrual, because of age, or - Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance EXCEPTION
(4) Compliance with the requirements of this subsection with respect to an employee pension benefit plan shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section relating to benefit accrual under such plan. - Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan EXCEPTION
(2) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section- - Narrow bona fide occupational qualification EXCEPTION
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business - Displayed scope and specialized exclusions AND
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination - Charge filing waiver and remedies AND
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; - Foreign workplace conflict with local law EXCEPTION
where such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance with such subsections would cause such employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located; - Good cause for employer discharge or discipline EXCEPTION
(3) to discharge or otherwise discipline an individual for good cause. - Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls AND
(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 - Reasonable factors other than age DEFENSE
where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age
2 · Cases (10)
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Opposition or participation✓ satisfied · pleaded
fact · supports Spratt alleges that Bellwood retaliated against her for filing an EEOC complaint
held Spratt's Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges each element of a retaliation claim under the ADEA.
- Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation✓ satisfied · pleaded
fact · supports Next, she alleges that she suffered a series of adverse employment actions, including putting her on administrative leave, taking legal action against her, changing the educational requirements for her position, constructively discharging her, and terminating her.
rule An action is materially adverse if it might have 'dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'
held Moreover, Spratt's allegations that she was placed on administrative leave and endured months of adverse workplace conduct following her EEOC charge is sufficient to deter a reasonable employee from engaging in future protected activity.
- Retaliatory causal connection✓ satisfied · pleaded
fact · supports She alleges that within two weeks of receiving her EEOC charge, Bellwood began engaging in a pattern of retaliatory conduct over nine months intended to harass her and cause her emotional distress that culminated in Spratt's constructive discharge.
held The Court finds that these allegations sufficiently allege a causal link.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice○ not reached · basis not recorded Not counted: background/merits
fact · supports He acknowledges that the plan as a whole, and the 2012 amendment, is age-neutral, for pension eligibility is distinct from age.
held The Northern Trust pension plan, both before and after the 2012 amendment, complies with § 623(i). Benefits depend on the number of years of credited service and the employee's salary, not on age.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice✓ satisfied · law
fact · supports Under the pension plan, retirement eligibility depends on a combination of age and a factor correlated with age (credited service).
held Here the plaintiffs have specifically identified a cause for the disparate impact: Caterpillar's decision to condition benefits on retirement eligibility, a status strongly correlated with age. No more is required.
- Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity✓ satisfied · law
fact · supports 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.
fact · supports Only 1.4% of employees under the age of 55 were eligible for retirement compared with 93.4% of those 55 and older.
held 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.
- Reasonable factors other than age✓ satisfied · law
fact · supports Caterpillar also hoped to avoid the expense of upgrading the unemployment plan's outdated administration system.
fact · supports Recognizing that the union had resisted its prior attempts to eliminate the plan, Caterpillar offered to distribute the trust's $7.8 million to union members to secure their support.
held Caterpillar has satisfied its burden. The liquidation plan was justified by a reasonable factor other than age-several, actually.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment✗ not satisfied · no-evidence
fact · cuts-against CUNA Mutual articulated several legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for preferring Logemann: (1) he had customer-service experience (Wrolstad did not); (2) he showed great enthusiasm for the position; and (3) he was willing to work for a salary within the range established for the job (Wrolstad was not).
fact · cuts-against No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual.
held The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.
- Charge filing waiver and remedies✗ not satisfied · law Not counted: applied/procedural
fact · cuts-against Wrolstad waited more than 300 days to file his retaliation charge with the Commission.
held The judge correctly concluded that Wrolstad's retaliation charge was untimely.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls✓ satisfied · law
fact · supports After Dale Kleber unsuccessfully applied for a job at CareFusion Corporation
held By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation✓ satisfied · triable
fact · supports However, Garett was not transferred to Edgewater. Soon after Garett's Edgewater interview, Shearer received a call from Anthropologie's regional manager Jen Berry, who informed her of Garett's late-August hotline call and complaint about Shearer's handling of Garett's transfer request. (See id. ¶¶ 52-53.) It was in this telephone conversation that the decision not to transfer Garett to the Edgewater store was made. (See id. ¶ 54; Deposition of Amy Shearer ("Shearer Dep.") at 79-80.) Although Garett testified in her deposition that she did not know who made the decision to deny approval of her transfer to Edgewater (see Garett Dep. 163), she inferred in her affidavit that it was a "retaliat[ory]" decision made by "Shearer instantly" upon learning of Garett's complaint against her (Garett Aff. ¶ 54).
held We have considered all of Anthropologie's appellate arguments in support of summary judgment and have found them to be without merit. The judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for trial of Garett's ADEA claims of hostile work environment and retaliation, and for further consideration of her claims under state laws.
rule a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Hiring discharge or employment terms✓ satisfied · proved
fact · supports After TWC Administration, LLC, d/b/a Time Warner Cable ("TWC"), fired Glenda Westmoreland, she filed this action
held Because TWC cannot overcome that hurdle, we affirm.
- Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment✓ satisfied · proved
fact · supports After delivering the firing decision to Westmoreland, Carroway gathered Westmoreland's belongings and escorted her out of the building. While walking to Westmoreland's car, Carroway stated, "Oh, girl, you don't have nothing to worry about. You'll get another job. Just go home and take care of those grandbabies." TWC chose one of Westmoreland's subordinates, a 37-year-old, to replace her. The company did not take any disciplinary action against Sherrill, who was then 43 years of age.
held Taken as a whole, this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that TWC's justification was pretextual and that the company fired Westmoreland to make room for a younger worker.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Charge filing waiver and remedies✗ not satisfied · waived Not counted: background/procedural
held They have abandoned their age-based claims, but appeal the summary judgment in the Agency's favor on the race discrimination claims.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment✗ not satisfied · no-evidence
fact · cuts-against But there is evidence of awkward interviews and some unsavvy conduct, which is at least an arguable basis for Nationwide's purported motives.
fact · cuts-against She needed to use the qualifications comparison evidence to prove pretext, and she did not introduce enough evidence to meet her burden in that way.
held Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment that Heisler failed to meet her burden of production to show pretext.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Case identity unavailable — citation unavailable · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
- Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment✗ not satisfied · no-evidence
fact · cuts-against Between 2014 and 2018, the defendants, Transocean Offshore Deepwater et al., reduced their offshore fleet by 59%.
fact · cuts-against And no other evidence shows, or even suggests, that Owen had any influence over the decision to terminate McMichael.
held Because we agree that McMichael failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, we AFFIRM.
Not addressed: elements 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31