2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-27-2006 

# S e a son wein v . F irs t M ont auk P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4666

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S e as on wein v . F ir s t M ont auk " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 836. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/836The c ase w as held CAV, pending theSupreme Court’s de cision in Smith v. City of * Jack son , 544 U.S. 228 (2005). Judg e Chertof

f wa s part of thepanel that initially considere d this case, but re signe d ** prior to t hetim etheop ini on

wa s f ile d. Th eop ini on

is f ile d b y a qu or um o f t hepa ne l. 2 8 U .S. C. § 46(d). Honora

ble Ronald L . Buc kwalter , Senior United States District Judg e for the Easter

n *** District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. NOT PREC EDENTIAL UN I TE D STAT ES C OURT O F APP EAL S FOR THETHIRD CIRCUI T No: 03-4666 J EROME SEASONWEI

N Appe lla nt v. FIRST MONTAUK SECURI TIES CORP ORATI ON Appe a l f ro m th eUn ite d St ate s D ist ri c t Co ur t for the D istrict of NewJ ersey D i s t r i ctC our tN o: 03- cv- 00459 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) *

N ovember12, 2004 B efor e: M cK ee, C her t off, C i r cui tJ udges , and ** B uckw al t er , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge, *** Fi l ed J une 27, 2006 OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AMThe district cour t granted summary

judgment on Seasonwein’s ADEA c laim and then 1 dismiss ed his state claim under the NJLAD for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Inasmuch a s we a re rever sing thegrant of summar y judgment on the federal c laim and re mandingfor f urther proce eding s, the district court will have subje ct matter jurisdiction to consider seasonwe in’s claim under

the NJLAD. 2 Jer om e S easonw ei n ap peals t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent t o F i rs t M ont auk Secur i t i es i n t he s ui the br oughtal l egi ng age di s cr i m i nat i on undert he A ge D i scr i m i nati on i n E m ploym ent A ct(“A D E A ”), and t he N ew Jer seyL aw A gainst D isc rim in a tio n (“ N JL A D ” ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f irm in p a rt, rev e rse in par t , and r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. 1 I. Si nce w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t hi s di s put e, w e nee d onl ys etfor t h t he pr ocedur al and fa ctual backgr ound t o t he ext entt hati s hel pful t o our br i ef di s cus s i on. I n r evi ew i ng a gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , w e appl yt he s ame t es tt he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have a ppl i ed. Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yi f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof la w . W al l i ng v. B r ady , 125 F. 3d 114, 116 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n m aki ng t hatdet erm i nat i on, w e re v ie w th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y , B eer s - C api t alv. W het z el , 2 5 6 F . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 3 0 n . 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B ot h par t i es di s cus s t he fa m i l i aral l ocat i on of the bur den of pr oof s etfor t h i n Mc D o n n e ll D o u g la s C o r p . v . G r e e n , 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) . Seas onw ei n ar gues t hatt he d istric t co u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h e h a d n o t o f f e re d su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

p re tex t toAcc ording ly , we a re not impresse d by

the fa ct that “Sea sonwein admitted that, at the 2 time of the initial lay-off

s, he had alrea dy

observe d a dec line in business and . . . ‘produc tion at First Montauk ha d dropped.’ ” Appe llee’s B r. at 4. We noted in Olson v G.E. Astrospace , 101 F.3d 947 ( 3d Cir. 1996), that a plaintiff’ s initi al belief that he wa s not discriminated ag ainst is not deter minative of the ultimate issue of the employer’ s motivation for an adverse e mploy ment action. 3 o v erc o m e F ir st M o n tauk ’s no n d iscri m inato ryex p lana ti o n that h e w as term inated as p art of a r educt i on i n for ce ( “R I F”) , nece s s i t at ed bya dow nturn i n bus i nes s and r educe d rev en u es. F ir st M o n tauk arg u es th at th ere is no ev iden ce fro m w h ich a rea so n ab le j u ry coul d concl ude that“di s cr i m i nat or yani m us w as . . . t he mot i vat i ng fac t orbehi nd t he R IF .” A p p e llee ’s B r. at 1 9 . F irst M o n tau k in sis ts th a t th e e v id e n c e “ c o n c lu siv e ly i ndi cat es ” thati t“di s char ged SE A SO N W E I N as par tof an RIF, and . . . forno ot her
r eas on. ” I

d. , at24. S E A S O N W E IN d o es n o t dispu te t h at he w as term inated as p art of F ir st M o n tauk ’s R I F , a n d i ti s c l e a rt h a th e w a s . H o w e v e r , t h a td o e s n o te n d o u ri n q u i r y. Fi r s tM ont auk cont i nual l ys t r es s es t he bus i nes s r eas ons fort he l ay offs w i t houtaddr es s i ng t he fundament al i s s ue r ai s ed bySeas onw ei n’ s cl ai m of age bi as . T he i s s ue her e i s not w hetherS easonw ei n w as t erm i nated pu rs uan tt o a R IF un dert aken t o ad dress F i st M ont auk’ s decl i ni ng fi nanci al s i tuat i on. R ather , t he i s s ue i s w hethert her e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac taboutw hetherSeas onw ei n’ s age w as a fa ct ori n s el ect i ng hi m for l a y of f p ur s ua ntt o Fi r s tM on t a uk ’ s RI F. 2 A .4

U ndert he McD on nell

D ou glass anal y s i s , an A D E A pl ai nt i ff c onfr ont ed w i t h a
m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entm us tfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e cas e. T he bur den then shi ft s t o the defen dan tt o p roduce a l egit i m at e, no n-di scr i m i nator yreas on for t he ad verse ac ti o n . If the d ef

en d an t sat isfies t h at bu rde n , the p lai n ti ff m ayo n lysu rviv e su m m ary j udgm entbycomi ng forw ar d w i t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatei t hert he em p loy er’s arti cu lat ed rea so n s are n o t believa b le, o r th at an inv idiou s d iscri m inato ry rea so n w as m o re li k elythan n o t a m o ti v ati n g o r de term inative c au se o f th e e m p loy er’s act i on s. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f

aci e cas e, Seas onw ei n “mustpr ove that( 1) he w as di s char ged; ( 2) w as qual i fi ed fort he pos i t i on; ( 3) w as w i t hi n t he pr ot ect ed cl as s att he t i m e of di s char ge; and ( 4) w as r epl ace d bys om eone out s i de the pr ot ect ed cl as s . ” D r eye r v. A r co C hem i cal

C om pany , 8 0 1 F . 2 d 6 5 1 (3 C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). T he di s t r i ctcour tfound that rd Seas onw ei n had s ucce s s ful l ym ade outa p rim a fa c ie cas e. H e w as di s char ged, he w as qual i fi ed forhi s pos i t i on, and he i s cl ear l yw i t hi n t he cl as s of w or ker s pr ot ect ed byt he A D E A . T he courtal s o hel d t hatSeas onw ei n had pr oduced e vi dence t hathe w as r epl ace d bya y oungerempl oy ee, L arr yR om eu. H ow ever , Fi r s tM ont auk cl ai m s t hatR om eu w as a lre a d ya n e m p lo y e e w h e n S e a so n w e in w a s la id o f f a n d th a t h e (R o m e u ) w a s m e re ly tr a n s f e rr e d to th e R e d B a n k N .J . o f f ic e f ro m N e w Y o rk a f

te r S e a s o n w e in le f

t. See A ppel l ee’ s B r . at14, n. 2. Seas onw ei n’ s compl ai ntactual l yal l eges t hatFi r s tM ont auk “tr ans ferr ed a s ubs t ant i al l yy oungerper s on, L aw r ence R om eu, fr om anotherbr anch of fi ceTwo member s of the pane l in Di Bias ere fu se d to join th epo rtion of theop ini on

that c a st 3 do ub t up on

thevia bil ity of a dis pa rateimp a c t th e or

y . Judg eMc Ke eand

Judg eB e c ker b oth

fe lt that section of the opinion wa s not nece ssary . Di Bias e , 48 F.3d at 71 n. 16, 732 n. 17. Ac co rd i n gl y , th e s ec t i o nad dre s s i n g d i s p ar at e i mp ac to n l y exp re s s edth e o p i n i o no f Ju d ge Gre enberg , who authore d the opinion for the pa nel. See Id . ( “ Judg eGre e nb e rgwrite s th is subsection only

for himself.” ). 5 th a t D e f e n d a n t h a d c lo se d ,” a n d th a t F irst M o n tau k a f f o rd e d R o m e u a n o p p o rtu n ityth a t it deni ed t o Seas onw ei n bas ed upon the l at t er ’ s age. C om pl . at¶ 6. H ow ever , gi ven the ci r cumst ance s her e, and Seas onw ei n’ s cl ai m t hathe w as t r eat ed l es s favor abl ybeca us e of h i s a g e , o u ra n a l ys i s d o e s n o ttu r n o n w h e t h e rS e a s o n w e i n w a s a c tu a l l y r e p l a c e d b y a y oungerempl oy ee. “The el ement s of [the] pr i m a fa ci e ca s e , . . . m us tnotbe appl i ed
w oodenl y , butm us tr atherbe t ai l or ed fl exi bl yt o fi tt he ci r cumst ance s of ea ch type of i l l egal di s cr i m i nat i on. ” G er aciv. Moody- Tot tr up, I nt er nat i onal , 82 F. 3d 578, 581 ( 3d. C i r . 1996) . W e bel i eve Sea s onw ei n has pr oduced i s s uffi ci entt o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of
m aterial fa ct reg ard less o f th e c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing R o m eu ’s t ran sfe r. Seas onw ei n es s ent i al l yar gues t hatal t hough Fi r s tM ont auk coul d cl ear l yl ay off e m p lo y e e s a s p a rt o f

th e R IF th a t w a s n e c e ss itate d b yth e d o w n tu rn in re v e n u e s, it co u ld notdo s o i n a mannert hatdi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m bas ed upon hi s age. As n o t e d a tt h e o u t s e t , we i n i t i a l l yh e l d t h i s c a s e “ CAV” t o a wa i tt h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sm i th v. C i t y of Jack s on b ec au se th e v iabili tyo f S ea so n w ein’s di s par at e i m pactar gum entw as notatal l cl ear . I n fac t , as Fi r s tM ont auk not es i n i t s br i ef, i n D iB i ase v. Sm i thK l i ne B eecha m C orp . , 48 F. 3d 719, 734 ( 3d C i r . 1995) , w e expr es s ed sk ep ti cism ab o u t w h ethe r th e A D E A en co m p asse d a d ispa rate im p ac t cl aim . H o w ev er, 36

gi ven the C our t ’ s hol di ng i n C ity o f J a c k s o n , i ti s now es t abl i s hed thatt he A D E A does p roh ibitem p loy m en t prac ti ce s tha t hav e a d ispa rate im p ac t on o lder w o rke rs w h o are p r o t e c t e d b yt h e ADE A. I n ar gui ng fors um m aryj udgm ent , and i n ar gui ng befor e us , Fi r s tM ont auk r el i es o n th e u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e th a t itw a s f o rc e d to layof

f w o rk e rs b e c a u se o f

a n e c o n o m ic dow ntur n. H ow ever , as Seas onw ei n corr ect l ynot es , Fi r s tM ont auk has notoffe r ed any e x p la n a tio n o f

h o w it d e te rm in e d w h ic h w o rk e rs w o u ld b e s e le c te d f o r l a y o f f. See A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 5. (“F ir st M o n tauk ’s ex p ress rea so n s fo r th e re d u cti o n in f o rce are s i gni fi cants t ock dec l i nes and s ubs t ant i al decl i ne i n fi r m r evenue s . I tpr ovi ded no r eas on f o r h o w th e d e te rm in a tio n w a s m a d e to te rm in a te o r r e ta in a n y o n e .” ). S e a so n w e in n o w a rg u e s th a t h e h a s p re se n ted su f f icie n t p ro o f

o f d isp a ra te t r eatm ent , and di s par at e i m pactt o s ur vi ve a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . I n r evi ew i ng a c laim o f

d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t, w e d e ter m in e if th e e v id e n c e su p p o rts a p lain tiff ’s c laim t hathe/ s he, w as di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tbeca us e of a ge. I n contr as t , i n eval uat i ng a cl ai m of di s par at e i m pact , w e foc us on w hethera fa ci al l yneutr al empl oym entpr act i ce ha d a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n o ld e r w o rk e rs in v io la tio n o f th e A D E A . Sm i th v Xerox , 196 F. 3d 3 5 8 , 3 7 1 (2 C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).

nd S easonw ei n rel i es i n p arton evidence o f each ser i es of l ay off s und ert aken byF i rs t M ont auk, i n ar gui ng t hat“[t ] he combi ned s al ar i es of thos e empl oy ees w ho w er e r et ai ned
w ho w er e y oungert han age 40 w as over$14, 000 hi ghert han the combi ned s al ar i es of7

t hos e empl oy ees w ho w er e t er m i nat ed dur i ng t he r educt i on i n for ce of m os t l yempl oy ees w ho w er e overage 40 . . . ”. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at6. W e r eal i ze thatt ot al i ng s al ar i es i s not extr emel yhel pful t o t he i s s ue of di s cr i m i nat or yani m us ordi s par at e i m pactbeca us e any appar entdi s cr epanc ym ays i m pl yr es ul tfr om a gr eat ernum berof empl oy ees bei ng inclu d ed in either g rou p o f e m p loy ee s, there b ysk ew ing the s alarytotals i n their fa v o r. H ow ever , Seas onw ei n al s o poi nt s t o evi dence t hat“the ave r age s al aryof thos e empl oy ees w ho w er e r et ai ned w ho w er e underage 40 w as near l y$3, 000 hi ghert han the ave r age sa lar yo f th o se e m p lo y e e s o v e r a g e 4 0 w h o w e re ter m in a ted d u rin g th e re d u c tio n in for ce. ” Id . E vi dence t hatt he ave r age s al aryof the empl oy ees w ho w er e r et ai ned w as gr eat er th a n th a t o f

th e e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re laid o f f is in c o n sis ten t w ith F irst M o n tau k ’s c laim t hati ts el ect ed empl oy ees forl ay off unde rt he R I F onl yt o i m pr ove the compani es fi nanci al s i tuat i on. A r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d t her efor e r ej ectt he pr offe r ed expl anat i on of
w hySeas onw ei n w as l ai d off. A l t hough Fi r s tM ont auk cl ai m s t hatSeas onw ei n i s not compar i ng aver age s al ar i es of empl oy ees w ho w er e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, t hatonl yr ai s es an i s s ue thatm us tbe det erm i ned bya fa ctfi nder . T hus , undert he s hi ft i ng bur den of the McD onnel lD ougl as a n a ly sis , F irst M o n tau k h a d to g o f u rth e r a n d a rticu late h o w it d ec ided w h ich e m p loy ee s w o u ld b e inc lud ed in the R IF . G iven it s fa il u re to d o that, there i s notenough on thi s r ecor d t o gr ants um m aryj udgm entt o Fi r s tM ont auk. T he evi dence i s i ns uffi ci entt o defe atSeas onw ei n’ s cl ai m t haty oungerw orker s w er e fa vor ed dur i ng t he8

RI F. Seas onw ei n r el i es i n par ton s t at i s t i cal evi dence t hathe cl ai m s coul d es t abl i s h t hat Fi r s tM ont auk w as m ot i vat ed byan age bi as i n s el ect i ng hi m fort he fi nal r ound of l ay offs , and thatt he l ay offs had a di s par at e i m pacton ol derw or ker s . C our t s have l ong re c o g n ize d th a t sta tistica l ev id e n c e c a n b e u se d in d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t as w e ll as d isp a ra te im p a c t c a s e s . See Age D is cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym ent

Law , L i n d e r ma n a n d Ka d u e ( BN A 2 0 0 3 ), s ee al

s o, B ul l i ngt on v. U

ni t ed Ai rLi nes , I

nc. , 186 F. 3d 1301, 1319 ( 10 C i r1999) th ( “I n a di s par at e i m pactcas e, s t at i s t i cal evi dence pl ay s a ce nt r al r ol e bec aus e the pl ai nt i ff i s at t empt i ng t o s how a part i cul arpr act i ce ha d a di s pr opor t i onat e i m pacton a part i cul ar g ro u p , a n d n o t th e e m p lo y e r's d is c ri m in a to ry in te n t.” ). I n r evi ew i ng Seas onw ei n’ s evi dence , t he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed i n par tupon t he fa ct t hatFi r s tM ont auk al s o “di s char ged a s ubs t ant i al num berof empl oy ees out s i de of the pr ot ect ed cl as s . ” See A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 18 . S ea so n w ein a rgu es th at t h e d istri ct co u rt shou l d h ave f

ocu sed on com pari ng on l yt ho se l i censed t rader s w ho w ere l ai d o ff b ecause o n ly th e ya re s itu a te d s im ila rl yto h im . See Anders on v. C ons ol i dat ed , 297 F. 3d 242 ( 3d. C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A s n o ted a b o v e, he then claim s tha t th e a v era g e sa lari es o f th e li ce n sed tr ad ers w h o w ere retaine d w as a ctua ll yh igh er tha n the a v era g e o f th e li ce n sed salaries w h o w ere l ai d off, and thatt he number of ol derw or ker s l ai d off s how s t hatFi r s tM ont auk w as tr y in g to g e t a y o u n g e r g ro u p o f lic e n s e d tr a d e rs , n o t ju s t r e d u c e e x p e n s e s . W e re a liz e , o f

c o u rs e , th a t a ju ry m ig h t n o t b e c o n v in c e d b yth is e v id e n c e . W e9

a lso re a lize th a t th e re is e v id e n c e th a t F irst M o n tau k p re v io u slym a d e sp e c ial e f f o rts to r et ai n Seas onw ei n and s uppor thi m dur i ng t he cour s e of hi s empl oym ent . H ow ever , t hat do es not negate the fa ctt hat the ev i den ce present ed b yS easonw ei n co m bined w i t h F i rs t M o n tau k ’s f

a ilu re to p ro v id e a n ye x p lan a tio n o f h o w it se lec ted w o rk e rs th a t w o u ld ul t i m at el ybe l ai doff r ai s es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ts uffi ci entt o al l ow S ea so n w ein’s c lai m o f d ispa rate tr ea tm en t un d er the A D E A to su rviv e su m m ary j udgm ent . I tw as t her efor e err ort o gr ants um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Fi s tM ont auk on that claim . H o w ev er, w e thin k the d istri ct co u rtw as c o rrect i n g ran ti n g su m m ary j u d g me n to n S e a s o n we i n ’ s d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc l a i m. A s w e n o ted a b o v e , the S u p re m e C o u rt c o n f irm e d th a t a d isp a ra te im p a c t cla im is cogni zabl e undert he A D E A . H ow ever , t he C our tal s o cl ar i fi ed thata “f ai l ur e t o i dent i fy th e sp e c if

ic p ra c tice . . .” th a t re su lted in a p a rticu lar a c tio n h a v in g a d isp a ra te im p a c t is fat al t o a di s par at e i m pactcl ai m undert he A D E A . 544 U . S. at241. I n r evi ew i ng t he a lleg a tio n s a t issu e th e re , the C o u rt o b se rv e d :

pet i t i oner s have done l i t t l e more t han poi ntoutt hatt he pay pl an ati s s ue i s r el at i vel yl es s gener ous t o ol derw or ker s t han to y o u n g e r w o rk e rs. T h e yh a v e n o t id e n tifie d a n ysp e c if ic te st, r equi r ement , orpr act i ce w i t hi n t he paypl an thathas an a d v e rse im p a c t o n o ld e r w o rk e rs. . . . it i s n o t en o u g h to s i m pl yal l ege thatt her e i s a di s par at e i m pacton w or ker s , or p o in t to a g e n e ra lize d p o licyth a t lea d s to su c h a n im p a c t. R ather , t he empl oy ee i s r es pons i bl e fori s ol at i ng and i dent i fy i ng t he s

peci f i c em p loy m en t prac ti ce s tha t are al l eged l yres po nsi ble for anyob ser ved st at i st i cal dis pari t i es. Id . (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T h e sa m e is t rue h ere . In10

hi s br i ef on a ppeal , Seas onw ei n does ar gue thatFi r s tM ont auk fa vor ed y ounger empl oy ees and t ar get ed ol derones i n deci di ng w ho w oul d be l ai d off. T hos e al l egat i ons m ayb e su ff

ici en tl ysp ec ifi c to a ll o w a d ispa rate im p ac t cl aim to su rviv e su m m ary j udgm entundert he C i t

y of Jack s on in q u iry . H o w e v e r, th a t is n o t w h a t h e a lleg e d in h is c o m p lain t. R a th e r, th e c o m p lain t th a t w a s p ro v id e d to u s a s p a rt o f A p p e llan t’s A p p e n d ix i n t hi s appea l onl ycont ai ns al l egat i ons of di s par at e tr eatm ent . Forexampl e, t he C o m p la in t s ta te s : “ [ F ir s t M o n ta u k ] . . . i lle g a lly te rm in a te d h im b e c a u s e o f h is a g e ,” C om pl tat¶ 1; “Pl ai nt i ff, . . . al l eges t hathe has been di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns t. . beca us e of hi s age, . . . ” Id ., at¶ 9; “Seas onw ei n’ s for ced t erm i nat i on w as m ot i vat ed s ol el yby D efe ndant ’ s i nt entt o di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tPl ai nt i ff on the bas i s of age , ” Id . , at¶ 11; and he r eques t s i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd damages “s ol el yas a r es ul tof D efe ndant ’ s di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tpl ai nt i ff on a ccountof hi s age, . . . ” Id . , at¶ 14. T hos e al l egat i ons of di s cr i m i nat or yani m us agai ns thi m do nots t at e a c l ai m of di s par at e i m pactw i t h any p rec isi o n , letalon e w ith the p rec isi o n req u ir ed u n d er C i t y of Jack s on . A l t hough Seas onw ei n now ar gues a di s par at e i m pactt heoryt o us , he musts t at e a caus e of a ct i on i n hi s C om pl ai nt , notm er el yi n hi s appel l at e br i ef, ori n oppos i ng a defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o Fi r s tM ont auk, i ns ofaras i tdi s m i s s ed S ea so n w ein’s c lai m o f d ispa rate tr ea tm en t un d er the A D E A , an d af firm su m m aryTh edis tric t c ourt did no t a dd re ss S e a so nw e in’ s disp ara tetr e atment c laim b e c a

us eit 4 appea red at the time to have been fore closed by the dec ision in Di

Bias e . A10. 11 ju d g m e n t in so f

a r a s it d ism iss e d a c laim o f d isp a ra te im p a c t. 4