Statutory Interpretation – ADEA

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Dale E. Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation

Case No.: 17-1206

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, KANNE, ROVNER, SYKES, HAMILTON, BARRETT, BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – ADEA 

After Dale Kleber unsuccessfully applied for a job at CareFusion Corporation, he sued for age discrimination on a theory of disparate impact liability. The district court dismissed his claim, concluding that § 4(a)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not authorize job applicants like Kleber to bring a disparate impact claim against a prospective employer. A divided panel of this court reversed. We granted en banc review and, affirming the district court, now hold that the plain language of § 4(a)(2) makes clear that Congress, while protecting employees from disparate impact age discrimination, did not extend that same protection to outside job applicants. While our conclusion is grounded in § 4(a)(2)’s plain language, it is reinforced by the ADEA’s broader structure and history.

Affirmed. Review Granted.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.