Karlo
et al. v. Pittsburgh Glass Works – 3d Cir. – January 10, 2017
The
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) protects only those individuals
who are at least forty years of age. The question in this case is whether a
disparate-impact claim is cognizable where a “subgroup” of employees at the
upper end of that range—in this case, employees aged fifty and older— were
alleged to have been disfavored relative to younger employees. We answer in the
affirmative.
Our
decision is dictated by the plain text of the statute as interpreted by the
Supreme Court. In particular, the ADEA prohibits disparate impacts based on
age, not forty-and-older identity. A rule that disallowed subgroups would
ignore genuine statistical disparities that could otherwise be actionable
through application of the plain text of the statute. Although several of our sister circuits have
ruled to the contrary, their reasoning relies primarily on policy arguments
that we do not find persuasive.
We
will therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court based on its interpretation
of the ADEA. We will also vacate the District Court’s order excluding the
testimony of plaintiffs’ statistics expert and remand for further Daubert
proceedings. We will affirm in all other respects.
