Legal Opinion
Rudolph Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided January 10, 2017No. 15-3435PublishedCited by 181 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SMITH, Chief Judge.
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…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by181 opinions
- Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
- Aaron Carson v. Lake County, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- UGI Sunbury LLC v. Permanent Easement for 1.7575Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
- In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
176 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.