The Honor abl e J am es E . Sh adi d, Chi efJ udge f or the  U nited S tates D istrict Co u rt for the C en tral D istrict of Ill ino is, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1273 K ATHERINE P UFFER, P laint if f, an d K AR EN P ELL, etal. , Interv enin g P la intif fs-A pp ella nts,
v. A LLS TATE I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:04- cv-05764

—Jeffrey T. Gilbert, Magis trate Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 23, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 27, 2012

Befo re F L A UM an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges , a nd S HA D ID , D i s t r i ctJudg e . 2 N o. 11

- 1273 F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Kat herine Puffersued A l l sta te In su ra n c e C om p an y (“ A llst at e” ) on be h alf ofh er se lf and a putati ve cl ass , alleging tha t All sta te car ri ed out a na t i o nwi de p a t t e r n o r p r a c t i c e o fs e x di s c r i mi na ti on i n vi ol ati on of Tit l e VI I of the Civi l Rights A ct of 1964, 42 U
. S. C . § 20 00e ets eq . , and the Eq ual Pay A ct o f19 63, 29 U
. S. C. § 2 06( d). In her com pla i nt, she a l l ege d gender-base d ea r ni ngdi spa r i ti es r o o te d i n di ffer en ti alt r eatm enta nd disp a r a t e i mpa c tthe o r i e s b a s e d o n Al l s t a t e ’ s s a l a r y, pr o m o ti o n, a nd t r aini ngpo l i ci es , whi chl eft si g ni fi ca nt di sc r et i o n in the ha nds o fi ndi vi dualmana g er s. The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed pla i nti ff’ s m oti on f orcl ass certification. I n resp ons e t o t he conc erns exp ressed by the cou rt an d in re sp on se to th e e n ac tm en t of th e L illy L ed b et te r Fa ir Pa y A cto f2 00 9, Pub L. No. 1 11

- 2 ( th e “Le dbe tt erAct”), pl aint i ffa g ain mov ed forc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n. Thi s ti m e, s he f ocuse d excl usi vel y o n A l l sta te’ s uni f or m co m pensati on p o l i c i e s . T h e c o u r ta g a i n d e n i e d c e r t i fi c a t i o n, c i t i n gf l a ws i n pla i nti ff’ s e vi dence and the l ack ofco m m on i ssues . Pufferthen set tl ed h er indiv i du alcl ai m s with A l l sta te. K ar en P el l, Gai lH owell s, and M ar y Kei th, m em ber s o f the putat i ve cl ass , i nter vened to appealth e d en i al s o f cl ass cer ti fi cat ion
. These i nter venor s no w al l ege o nl y a dispar ate i m pact theor y, cl ai m i ng tha t All sta te’ s pol i cy of aw ar ding m er i t incre ase s ba sed o n a per centa ge o fbas e p a y a n d A l l s t a t e ’ s p o l i c y o fc o mp a r i n gs a l a r i e s t o i t s c o mpeti tor s ca used gender

-base d dispar i ti es i n earni ngs. W e sha ll n o t reach the m erits ofthis clai m , how ever. W e co ncl ud e that i n te rvenor s hav e wai ved thei r disparat e i m pact cl ai m byf ai l i ng to m ea ni ngfully deve l opN o. 11

- 1273 3 it b efo re th e d ist ric t c ou rt . A lth ou gh p lain tiff n om i n a l ly men t i o ne d a di s pa r a t e i mpa c tc l a i m i n he r c o mpl ai nt, she deve l oped an d argued o nl y herpatte rn- or - pract i ce c laim

— a typ e of inten tional di s crim ination. W e the refore affi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n.

I . B a c kg r o und A . All st at e’ s Corpor at e St ructur e a nd Pol i ci es A llst at e In su ra n c e C om p an y is h ea d q u ar te re d in Illin ois an d em p loy s 3 8,0 00 p eo p le th ro u g h o u t t h e c ou n tr y. In 2002 , A l l sta te cr eat ed an o perat i ng uni t ca l l ed A l l sta te Prote ction, w hich em p loys app roxim ately 80% of A ll state ’s per sonne l

. Al l st at e Pr o te ct i o n i s o r g an i ze d i nt o di ffer en t Are as o fRe spo ns ibi l i ty( “AORs” )
. The fo url ar g es t AO Rs ar e Cl ai m s, Pr o ductOpe r at i o ns , Pr o te ct i o n F i na nc e, a nd Di st r ibut i o n. Re spo ns ibi l i ti es , su per vi so r s, o ffi ce l o ca ti o ns , and s a l a r y g r a de s v a r y am ong th e s e AOR s . T he Cl a i ms AOR h a n d les ins u ra n c e c laim s a n d em p loy s a p p ro x im at ely 17, 000 peopl e a s a tto rne ys, hum an r eso urces pro fessi o na l s, i nf o r m at i o n t ec hno l o g ys pec i al i st s, c l ai m s i nvest i gat or s, cla im s a nd subr oga ti on s er vi ce m anage rs , and proj ect m anage rs . The Pro du ct Opera ti ons A OR cr eat es i nsurance products, pri ces products, as ses ses r i sk, upd ate s A l l sta te’ s insurance pol i ci es, and com m unica tes with c ustom er s. A m ong i ts em plo yee s a re pri ci ng di re cto rs , actuar i es, pro du ct o perat i ons m anage rs , and pers onal l i ne di re cto rs and m anage rs . The Prot ec ti on F i nance A OR pro vi des fi nanci alsupport and typ icall y e m plo ys m anage rs with fi nance o r acco unti ng degree s. The Di s-4 N o. 11

- 1273 tr ibuti on AO R w or ks w i th the i nsurance age nci es that se llA l l sta te’ s pro du cts by devel opi ng r eco gni ti on pl ans, dir ectly s up port i ng ag ents, and prom oting business. T he hierarch ical stru ctu re am ong the A O R s is sim il ar: entr y- l eve lm anage rs ar e a t S al ar y Gra des ( “Grades”) 63 an d 64 ; se ni o r m an ag er s ar e at Gr ade 77; di r ec to r s are at Grade 78; appoi n ted o ffi cerposi ti ons ( A ssi sta nt Vi ce Pres i dent and A ssi sta nt Fi el d Vice Pre si dent) ar e a t Grade 80; and el ecte d offi cerposi ti ons ( Vice Pre si dent, Sen ior V ice Presid en t, an d Senior Vice Pres iden t) are a tG r a d e 9 0 a n d ab o v e . A tth e e n d o f2 0 0 3 , w o me n c o mpr i se d 6 1% o fPr o te ct i o n e m pl o y ee s bu t onl y 3 6% o fthe m anage ri alposi ti ons and 24% o fthe offi cerposi ti ons. A t the b e g i nn i ngo fe a c h y e a r, ma na g e r s me e twi th thei r supe rvi sor s t o disc uss m aj orj ob re sponsibi l i ti es an d i ndi vi dualpe r f orm an ce go al s. At the e nd o fthe y e a r, s u p e r v i s o r s fi l lo u tp e r f o r ma n c e d e v e l o p me n ts u mm ar i es f orthe m anage rs t h ey o ver see . In a pr oce ss k no wn as “ o ne - o ver- o ne ” r ev i ew, s upe r vi so r s su bmi t th e perf or m ance s um m ar i es to thei r own superi or s forinp ut, r e v i e w, a n d a p p r o v a lb e f o r e tu r n i n gth e m o v e r t o the evalu ated m an agers. A ll state also evalu ates its m an agers bas ed on 17 criti cal suc cess f acto rs and on Q ua li ty L ead ershi p M anage m en t Su rv eys . These evaluati ons f acto r i nto deci si ons about m er i t o r prom oti onalsa l ar y incre ase s f orm anage rs . All st at e Protect i o n i s al l o tt ed a per ce nt ag e amoun t o fmo n e y a n n u a l l y f o r me r i to r p r o mo t i o n a ls a l a r y i ncre ase s. A l l sta te’ s Hu m an Reso urce s d ep ar tm en t e stabl i shes an o ver al lr ange ofsa l ar y incre ase s in ter m s ofa perce ntageN o. 11

- 1273 5

am ount f orea ch perfor m an c e an d sal ar y l eve l

. These g ui del i ne s ar e su g g es ti o ns , l ea vings upe r vi so r s wi th the disc re ti on t o gr an t m or e o r l ess o fan incre ase bas ed on p e r f o r ma n c e . S a l a r y i n c r e a s e s f o r o ffi c e r s f o l l o w a sim ilarpro cess exce pt thatthe seni orm anage m ent t eam m ake s the deci si ons.

B . P r o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und K ather i ne Puffer, the or i gi nalpl ai nti ffi n thi s s uit, worke d atAl l st at e fr o m 1 97 7 to 2 00 3. Sh e pr i m ar i l y wor k ed i n the Fi nance AO R, but sh e also worke d i n the Pro du cti on Op er ati ons A OR
. By 1993 , Puffer had b ee n pro m ote d ei ght t i m es. Pufferal l ege d that s he was sexual l y har ass ed by her supervi sorfro m l ate
- 1998 to m i d-1 999 and that she was no tp r o mot e d b e c a us e s he r ej e c t e d h e r s up e r v i s o r ’ s a dvan c e s a nd b e c a us e o fh e rg e nd e r . S he fi l e d a c ha r ge ofge nd erdi scr i m i nati on, se xual hara ssm en t, and re tal i atio n w i th the Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssio n (“E E O C ”) in Jan u ar y 2 0 01 , bu t s h e d id n otfile a l aws ui t wi th i n the r equi r ed tim e per i o d a fte r r ec ei ving a r i ght t o sue l ett er . In 200 3, P ufferwas ter m i nated as part of a re or gani zati on and o ffi cer re du cti on i n for ce. Four tee n offi cer s, i ncl ud i ng Puffer, were ter m i nated at that ti m e: el eve n w er e m al e a nd three w er e fem al e. Puffer f i l e d a ne w c ha r g e wi th the EEO C, a l l e g i ng g e nd er di scri m i nati on a nd r et ali ati on, and she then t i m el y fi l ed the c om pla i nt i n thi s ca se. I n heram ended c om pla i nt, Pufferas ser ted thr ee cl ai m s. Fi rs t, she alleg ed that A l l sta te disc ri m i nated6 N o. 11

- 1273 aga i nst he r and a cl ass of f em al e m anage ri alem plo yee s because o fthei r gender and al l owed the disc rim in atio n “to exi st an d g o unrem edi ed f orso l ong that i t a m ounts to a policy or p ractice an d cons titute s A ll state ’s stand ard oper ating pro cedure. ” Am
. Com pl. ¶ 3 8. S he al l ege d th i s cl ai m unde r b o th“ di ffer en ti alt r ea tmen t an d dispar ate i m pac t th eo ri es ofl i abi l i ty und erTi tl e VI I
. ” Id. ¶ 53
. S ec o nd, Puffera l l eg ed a cl as s cl ai m un d er the Eq ua lP a y Ac t, c o nt e nd i ngtha tAl l s t a t e p a y s p ut a ti ve c las s m em b er s “ low er w a g es th an m ale em p loy ee s in s u b s ta n tia lly eq u al jobs ev en th ou gh P lain tiffs an d all othe rs si m i l ar l y s i tuate d perf or m ed si m i l ar d u ti es re q u irin g t h e s am e s kill, effor t, an d r e s p o n sib ility of m ale em p loy ee s” an d p er for m ed “s u b st an tia lly e q u al w or k.” Id. ¶¶ 57, 59
. Thi rd, Pufferal l ege d an i nd i vi du alclaim ofr eta l i ati on under Ti tl e VI Iand the Eq ual Pay A ct. A t the ti m e Puffer fi l ed herco m pla i nt, cas e l aw supporte d the “ paycheck accr ual r ule , ” s uch that a new cl ai m under Tit l e VI Iar ose ea ch ti m e a n em plo yeri ss u ed a paycheck r e fl e c t i n gd i s c r i mi n a t o r y w a g e s , e v e n i fth e d i s c r i mi na to r y de ci si o n s et tingthe a m o untoccur r ed o ut si de th e l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d ( i
. e. , mor e th an3 00 da y s be f o r e th e fi l i ngo fthe fi r stEEOC c ha r g e). B ut in 2 00 7, i n Le db e t t e rv. Goodye arTire& Rub b e rCo. , th e Sup re m e Cour t hel d that prese nt effects of a d i scr i m i natory deci si on that pr edated the l i m i tat i ons perio d coul d no l onge r f or m the basi s for Tit l e VI Il i abi l i ty. 550 U
. S. 618, 632, 643 (2007). On N ovem ber8, 20 07, aftersubst anti aldi sco very, Pufferm ove d fo r cl ass cer ti fi cati on pursuant to Feder al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u r e 2 3 ( b )(2) an d 23 (b )(3) of h er T itleN o. 11

- 1273 7

I n 2 00 6, Al l s t at e appa ren tly a dj us t ed the e ar ni ngs l eve l s of 1 wom ento elim i nat e obs er ved ge nderdi s par i t i es withi n j ob cod es. V II cl ai m s. S he so ught t o cer ti fy a cl ass o fapproxi m at ely 1700 fem al e m anage rs i n the posi ti on o fdi vi si on or departm ent m anage r ( Grade 63) and abo ve w ho work ed orco nti nue to work at A l l sta te P ro tecti on s i nce M ay 9, 20 01
. M embe r s o fthe put at i ve c l as s he l d 2 75 di ffer en t j obs i n a hund re d o ffi ces acr oss the countr y. Eighty per ce nto fthe put at i ve class w as e m pl o y ed i n e ntr y- l eve lm anage m ent pos i ti ons, with the r em ai nd ero f the c l ass i n hi gherm anage m ent a nd o ffi cerposi tions. Pl ainti ffar gued that A l l sta te has a “s tr ong pater nal ist ic cul ture ” a n d further that “A l l sta te Pro tect i on’ s o rg ani zati onalst ructur e v est s a l lautho ri ty to choos e, advance and com pensate sta ffi n the m al e- dom i nated, se ni or m anage r ra nks. ” Pl

. ’ s Cl ass Cert
. M em . 1. The parti es bri efed the cl ass cer ti fi cati on m ot ion f or n ea rly a ye ar . Th ey offe re d th e o p i n ion s o f tw o s ta tis tici ans, two so ci ol ogi sts , two i nd u st ri alpsycho l ogi sts , and 84 f act w i tness es. Pl ai nti ff’ s m ai n expert, Dr. J ani ce M add en, pre sente d stati st ica l ev id en c e in d ica tin g that, fro m 2001 thr ough 2 005, wom en earn ed subst anti al l y l ower 1 wa g e s tha n mendi d a te v e r y s a l a r y g r a de

— eve n after acco unti ng f orj ob code, te n u re , and other var i abl es. Pl a i nt i ffa l s o p r e s e nt e d the e xp e r tr e po r t o f Dr
. Cr i s t i na G. Banks, an ind ustr i aland or gani zati onalpsycho l ogi st, a nd Dr
. Ba rb a r a R e s k i n, a s o c i o l o g i s t
. Al l s t a t e c o un t er ed w i th anal ysi s fro m i ts own exper ts, incl ud i ng laboreco no-8 N o. 11

- 1273

m ist Dr. R obert T op el, i nd us trialps ych ologi st D r. K athl een K. Lund quis t, and so ci ol ogi st Dr. Chr ist opher W i ns hi p. On Januar y 1 5, 20 09, M agi str ate J ud ge Schenk i er den i ed pl aint i ff’ s m o ti o n f o r cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n. The 42 -p ag e o p i n ion d isc u ss ed th e p at te rn -or -p ra c tic e c laim al m ostexcl usi vel y, m enti oni ng the d i spara te i m pact cl ai m i n a foo tnot e but provi ding no s epara te an aly si s. A l though the co urt f ou n d thatthe pu tat i ve cl ass sat i sfi ed Rule 23 ( a) ’ s num er osi ty and adequacy r equi re me n t s , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a ti tf a i l e d t o s a t i s fy th e c o mm onal i ty re quir em ent. The co urt str ess ed the he ter oge nei ty ofthe cl ass m em ber s a nd the i nd i vi du aldeci si onm ake rs . T h e c ou rtfou n d p lain tiff’s ex p er t re p or ts on ly m in im ally pr o ba ti ve o fc o m m o na l i tya nd f o und the de cl ar ati o ns to dem on s t r a t e a l ack ofco m m onal i ty. The co urt disc ounted Dr. M add en’ s s tati sti calanal ysi s be cause i t incl ud ed w age d ifferentials that p red ated the class p eriod (con trary to Led better ) , bec ause i t f ai l ed to acc ount f or“m easu re s of producti vi ty, ” a nd bec ause i t r eve al ed s i gni fi cant v ar i ati ons i n the sta nd ar d d ev i ati ons between sa l ar y g ra des. The cour t a l so deter m i ned that pla i nti fff ai l ed to m eet the typi cal i ty re quir em ent b ecause the cl ai m s a nd defenses would neces si tat e ind i vi du al i zed i nquir i es. T he district cou rt conc lud ed that, eveni f p lai nt iff coul d sati sfy c om m onal i ty and typi cal i ty, she f a i l e d to show that cer ti fi cati on was pro per und erei th erRule 23 ( b) ( 2) o r ( b ) ( 3 )
. Th e c o ur t r ej e c t e d the pr o pr i e t y o f a Ru l e 23 ( b) ( 2) cl as s sinc e pl aint i ffso ug htpr i m ar i l y mone y da m ag es . The cour t a l so f ou n d a R ule 23 ( b) ( 3) cl ass to be i napp ro pri ate ,N o. 11

- 1273 9

Tw enty- five m em bers o fthe putati ve cl ass l aterpursued 2 ind iv id u al claim s. concl ud i ng tha t co m m on i ssues di d n ot predom i nate b ase d on the i nd i vi du al i zed i nquir i es that w oul d be ne ce ss ar y t o de ter m i ne the r ea so n fo r e ac h e m pl o y m en t acti on. The co urt deter m i ned th at a cl ass act i on was not the s up e r i o r mea ns t o a dj ud i c a t e the c l a i m b e c a us e 1 700 i nd i vi du alj ury tr i al s would be needed to d eci de dam age s, co ns ti tu ti o na lque st i o ns w oul d a r i se b y ha vingdi ffer en t j uri es exam i ne the l i abi l i ty i ssue, and the i nd i vi du al cl ass m em ber s had suffi ci entl y l ar ge sta kes to be abl e t o aff o r d t o l i ti g at e o n the i r o wn. 2 S o o n a fte r the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si on, Pr es i den t Oba m a si g ne d the Le dbe tt erAct, e ffecti ve l y o ve r r ul i ng the Suprem e C ourt ’ s Led better d ec isio n an d ret ro ac tiv ely re i nstat i ng the paycheckacc rualr ule

. On Septem ber11 , 20 09, pl ai nti ffm ove d again for cl ass cer ti fi cati on a nd ar gued that t h e co urt shoul d rec onsi der the e vi dence subm i tte d i n l i ght o fthe Led bett erA ct. S he s ubs ta nt i all y na r r o wed he r a r g um en t i n thi s m o ti o n, arg u in g only that A ll state ’s un iform ann ua l salary re vi ew and com peti ti ve pay analysi s di sad vantag ed fem al e m anage rs . A l though she u sed the ter m s “ dispar ate i mp a c t ” a n d “ p a t t e r n - o r - p r a c t i c e ” t o d e s c r ib e h e r c l a i ms i n herm oti on f orcl ass cer ti fi cati on, hersupporting m em or an dum di sc us se d f ac tu al a l l eg at i o ns a nd l eg ala r g ume n t s o n l y i n s u p p o r to fth e p a t t e r n - o r - p r a c t i c e c l a i m. On O cto b er 8, 20 09, M agi str ate J ud ge Schenk i eri ssued ane xt en si ve o r alde ci si o n de ny i ngpl aint i ff’ s se co nd10 N o. 11

- 1273

m oti on f orcer ti fi cati on . The co urt ackno w l edged that p l aint i ffha d m ade a “ g enui ne e ff o r t” t o a ddr es s hi s co nc erns but concl ud ed that the r enewed m oti on s ti ll f ai l ed to s at i sfy Rul e 23
. Re g ard i ngi ts c o m m o na l i tyc o ncer ns, the court cri ti ci zed Dr. M add en’ s a nal ysi s for f ai l i ng to co n tr ol foral lo fthe var i abl es, f ai l i ng to consi der the i nfl u en c e o fper f or m ance a sse ssm ents on sal ar y di ffer ences, and faili ng to co ntro lf orj ob l oca ti on (re lev an t fo r loo kin g a t t h e a c tio n s o f p ar tic u lar su p er vis o r s )
. T h e c o u r te x p r e s s e d th a tth e s i g n i fi c a n tv a r i a ti o ns i n sta nd ar d devi ati ons by sal ar y gr ad e sugges ted th at d iffer en tia tio n s e x ist ed th at w er e n otad eq u at ely expla i ned by th e sta ti sti calanal ysi s. The co urt w as not persuaded by pla i nti ff’ s narr owing of the cl ass ce rt ifi cati on cl ai m to exte rnalr ev iew o fsa l ar y deci si ons because the c ourtf ound itto be i nseparabl e from i nter nali ssues an d b ecause Dr
. M adde n’ s an aly si s ha d e xa m i ne d b o th

. The cour t did not add re ss the effect of the L ed b ett er A ct s in c e un related de fi cienc ies conv inced the cou rt that pla i nti fff ai l ed to e stabl i sh co m m onal i ty. A l though pla i nti ffel i m i nated hercl ai m f orco m p en sa tory dam age s, the c ourtst i l ld et erm i ned that the putat i ve cl ass f ai l ed to meet Rul e 23 ( b) ( 2) b ec au se b ac k paywoul d b e su bs ta nti al (pos sibl y $ 85 m i l l i on) and beca use decl ar ato ryr el i ef woul d b e o nl y b ac k war ds- l o o k i ng . The c o ur t al so e xpress ed conce rn about the l ack ofan op t-out ri ght. The cour t l i kewis e found Ru l e 23( b) ( 3) to be an i napp ro pr i at e ba si s f o r c er ti fi ca ti o n b as ed o n i ts pr ev ious co ncer ns abo ut pre dom i nance a nd superi or i ty. Puffer ’ s ca se w as then t ra nsfer re d to M agistrate J ud ge Gilber t. On J an u ar y 7, 20 11, Pufferse ttl ed herN o. 11

- 1273 11 i nd i vi du alcl ai m s with A l l sta te. Th e co urt dism i sse d her c a s e wi th pr ej ud i c e , thu s mak i ng the de ni a l s ofcl ass cer ti fi cati on fi naland appeal abl e. P u t a t i v e c l a s s me mb e r s Ka r e n P e l l, Ma r y Ke i th, an d Ga i lHowell s m o ve d t o i nt er ve ne t o a ppea lthe J anuary15 , 20 09 and October8, 20 09 denia l s o fcl ass cer ti fi cati on. Pel lworke d fo r A l l sta te fro m 19 73 to 1989 and again fro m 19 95 to 2006 , i n thr ee nor theas tern sta tes
. She bri efl y w or ke d as a Fr ontl i ne Per f or m ance Leader ( Grade 63) befor e be i ng dem ote d to a desk posi ti on i n 200 5. Keith w or ked f orA l l sta te fro m 19 80 to 2009 , predom i nantl y in the Fi nance AO R. S h e las t w or ked as a Dir ecto r i n Fi nance ( Grade 78)

. H owell s work ed f or A l lst at e fro m 19 84 to 2006 , pri m ar i l y in the Dist ributi on A OR i n the So uth W estRegi on. S he worke d i n se ver al G ra d e 6 4 m an ag em en t p os itio n s. M a gis tr at e Ju d ge G ilber t g ra nted thei r m oti on t o i nter vene on J anuary 28, 20 11. I nter venor s a pp ealo nl y the deni alo fcer ti fi cati on for t h e Ti tl e VI Idi spara te i m pact chal l enge und er Rul e 23 ( a) , (b) ( 3) , a nd ( c) ( 4)
. The y c l ai m tha t All state ’s sa lar y a d m in ist ra tio n p ro c es s, w h ich d et er m in es m er it i ncre ase s ba sed on a p er centag e ofbase pay and an exte rnal m ar ke t c o m p ar iso n, ha d a d isp ar at e im p ac t o n fem ale m anage rs betw een 2 002 and 2005. They do not ap peal th e d en ialof class certifi cation a s to the p attern -orpractic e cl ai m o fi ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on, i n l i ght o f th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Wal

-M ar tSt ore s , Inc . v. D u k es , 1 3 1 S
. Ct
. 2 5 4 1 ( 2 0 1 1 )
. T he y r e l y o n the s t a t i sti cal r epo r ts fr o m Dr
. M adde n, b utthe y do no t r ely on th e r e p o r t o f D r . B a n k s , wh o h a d s t a t e d th a t b i a s s t e ms12 N o. 11

- 1273 fro m the exer ci se ofdisc re tio n and that perf or m ance evaluati ons ar e no t co nd ucted cons i ste ntl y b etween r eg i o ns o r sup er vi so r s, o ro n the r epo r t o fDr
. Re sk i n, w ho h as op ined that A ll state h a s a pat erna li stic cu lture an d th atthe e xe r ci se o fdi sc r et i o n c o nt r ibut es t o the sys tem ati c di sadvantag e o fthe fem al e m anage rs .
I I . Discussi on A . St and ar d ofRevie w W e r evie w t he di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m oti on f or c l as s c e r t i fi c a t i o n f o r a n ab u s e o fd i s c r e t i o n, b u twe re v i e w the c o ur t ’ s p ur e l y l e g a lde t e r mi na t i o ns de n o vo. Andre ws v. Che vy Chas eBank, 54 5 F
. 3d 570, 5 73 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. A pla i nti ff w ho m ove s f or cl as s cert i fi cati on m u s ts a t i s fy th e n u me r o s i t y, c o mmo n a l i t y, ty p i c a l i t y, a nd ad e q ua cy of represen tation req uirem en ts of Ru le 23(a) , as w ell as atlea st on e s u b se c t ion of R u le 2 3(b ). F ED . R. C IV . P . 23; see also A rreola v. G o din ez , 54 6 F
. 3d 788, 79 7 (7th C ir. 2008). I nt er ve no r s argu e f o r de no vo r ev i ew, c o nt en di ng that the di stri ct c ourtappli ed the w ro ng st andard und er Lew is v . City of

Chi cago , 13 0 S
. Ct. 21 91 ( 2010 ) , and that w e s houl d rec onsi der thei r cl ai m i n l i ght o fWa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc . v. D uk es , 131 S . C t
. 2541 (2011). I n p articu lar, i nter venor s a rgu e that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to an al yze pl ai nti ff’ s di spara te i m pact cl ai m se parat el y fro m h er p at te rn -or -p ra c ti c e c laim . W e fu lly re c og n ize th is ar gum en t, b ut, a s we e xpl ain in the f o l l o wi ngs ec ti o n, w e c o nc l ud e tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a pp r o a c h r e s ult edN o. 11

- 1273 13 fro m p lai nti ff’ s insuffi ci ent pr ese ntati on o fthe dispar ate i mp a c tc l a i m.
B. W aiver ofD isp arate I m p act Claim A l l st at e c on te n d s t h at p lain tiff fa iled to ad eq u at ely p res e n t a d ispa rate im p act claim based on a un iform sal ar y a dm i ni str atio n pol i cy to the di str i ct c ourtsuch th at int er ve n or s a re n ow b ar re d fr om m ak in g s u c h a c laim o n a pp e a l

. A ft e r r e v i e wi ngthe mo t i o ns a nd me mor a nd a fi led by p lai nt iff, w e agree w ith A ll state that plaintiff d id n otad eq u at ely p re se n t h er d i sp ar at e im p ac t c laim to the di str i ct c ou rt
. Because pla i nti ffdi d not pre ser ve th is c laim , in te rv en or s m a y n otrely on it as th e b as is for th eir ap p ea l. T h e w aiv ed d isp ar at e im p ac t c laim is th e only clai m tha t i nt erven ors ap p eal, and therefore w e m u st affirm th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of c er tific at ion
.
1. L eg al F ram ew ork Dispar ate im p act cl ai m s r equi re no proo fo fdi scr i m i natory m otive and “involv e e m p loym en t pra ctices th at are f ac i a l l y n e u t r a l i n th e i r t r e a t me n t o f d i ffe r e n t g r o u ps but that i n f act f al lm or e har shl y o n one gr oup than ano ther and c an not be j usti fi ed by busi ness necess i ty. ” Int ’ l Bhd. o f Team sters v . U nited Sta tes , 431 U
. S. 324, 335 n
. 15 (1977). B y c o n t r a s t, d i ffe r e n t i al t r e a t me n tc l a i ms , a l s o kn o wn as dispar ate tr eat m ent c l ai m s, r equi re pl ai n tiffs to pro ve d isc rim in at or y m ot ive or in te n t. Seeid

. at33 5- 36. Pa tt ern- o r - pr ac ti ce c l ai m s, l i k e di ffer en ti alt r ea tment cl ai m s, r epr es en t a th eory o fi nt en ti o na ldi sc r i m i na ti o n.14 N o. 11

- 1273 C ouncil 31, Am
. Fe d’n of State, Cnty. & M un. E m ps. , AFL-C IO v. Wa rd, 97 8 F
. 2d 373, 378 ( 7th Cir
. 1992 )
. Patt er n-o r- pract i ce c laim s re q u ire a “s h ow in g t h at an em p loy er reg u lar ly and pu rpos efully di sc ri m i nates ag ai nst a pro tect ed gr oup. ” Id. ; s e eal s o Ki ng v. Ge n. Ele c. Co. , 96 0 F
. 2d 617, 62 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)
. Pl ai nti ff s m ust pro ve that disc ri m i nati on “w as th e com p an y’s stan d ard ope rating p r o c ed ure

— th e regul arr atherthan the unusualprac ti ce. ” In t ’ l Bhd. of Team sters , 431 U .S. at 3 36 ; see also id. a t 3 6 0 ( “ [ A]tt he l i abi l i ty sta ge ofa pattern-o r- pract i ce t rial t h e fo cus o ften w i l lnotbe on ind i vi du alhi ring d eci si ons, but on a patte rn of d i s c rim in at or y d ec isio n m ak in g.” ). A s o n e c irc u it has obser ved, “[ i ] n eve ryi nstance i n w hi ch the phrase has be en used by the Sup re m e Cour t, a ‘ pattern orprac ti ce’ cl aim u n d er Ti tl e VI Ir efer s t o a patt er n orprac ti ce o f d isp ar at e t re at m en t, ra th er th an d isp ar at e im p ac t.” We s s m an v. Gi t t e ns , 160 F.3 d 79 0, 81 7 n .20 (1s t C ir. 19 98 ); see al s o Al l i s on v. Ci tgo Pe t r ol e um Corp. , 15 1 F .3d 4 02, 40 9 ( 5th Cir
. 19 98) ( re fer ring to a pattern-o r- pract i ce c l ai m as a “sy ste m i c di spara te tr eat m ent theor y” ). W e hav e r efer re d to a p att ern- o r - pr ac ti ce c as e as a “ m ea ns o fpr o vingi nt en ti onaldi scr i m i nati on [ that] is d istinct fro m a dispar ate i m pac t ca se , wher e th e pl aint i ffne ed no t m ak e an y s ho wi ng ofthe em plo yer ’ s intent. ” Counc i l 31 , 97 8 F
. 2d at 378. Fordi spara te i m pact cl ai m s, a pla i nti ffm ust e stabl i sh that a par ti cul arem ploym ent pr acti ce c auses a dispar ate i mpa c to n a me mb e r o fa p r o t e c t e d c l a s s . 4 2 U
. S
. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( k); Adam s v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 46 9 F
. 3d 609, 61 3 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). T o sa tis fy t h is b u rd en , th e p lain tiff is “r es p on sib le for isola tin g a n d id en tify in g t h e sp ec ific em p loy m en ts p ra c tic es th at are alleg ed ly re sp on sib le f orany ob se rved stat i sti caldi spari ti es. ” Wa tson v. Fo rtN o. 11

- 1273 15 Wo rth B a nk& Trust, 48 7 U .S. 97 7, 99 4 (1 9 8 8 ); Ben ne t tv. R ober ts , 295 F.3d 68 7, 6 9 8 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). N ot ab ly, “itis not enough t o si m ply a lleg e that there i s a di spara te i m pact on w or ker s, o r poi nt to a gener al i zed pol i cy that l eads t o such an i m pact. ” S mi t h v . C i tyo f Ja c ks on , 54 4 U .S. 2 2 8 , 2 41 (20 05 ). Failu re to id en tify th e s p ec ific p ra c tic e c o u ld lea d to em p loy er s b ein g h eld liab le f or“the m yr i ad ofi nnocent causes thatm ay le ad to sta ti sti cali m bal ances. ” Wat s on , 487 U
. S. at 99 4 . T he plaintiff m ust a l so est abl i sh causa ti on b y “offer [ i ng] st ati sti cal e v i de nc e o f a k i nd a nd de g r e e s uffi c i e nt t o s ho w that the p ra cti ce i n qu e s t i o n ha s c a us e d the e xc l us i o n o fa pp li can ts for j obs or pr o m o t io ns becau se of their m em bershi p i n a pr ote cted g ro up.” Id. at9 94- 95
. Onl y i fthe pla i nti ffsucce eds i n est abl i shi ng di spara te i m pact does th e bur den sh i ft to th e defen dan t- empl o y er to d em o nst r at e th atthe em p loymentpr ac ti ce i s “j o b r el at ed f o r the po s i t i o n i n qu e s t i o n a nd c o ns i s t e ntwi th b us i ne s s n e c essit y.” 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e-2 (k)(1 )(A ); se e also Le w is , 130 S
. Ct. at 21 98

- 99
. I fthe e m pl o y ers at i sfi es th i s r equi r ement, the b u r d e n s h ifts ba c k t o th e p lain tiff t o s h ow th at an eq u ally val i d and le ss disc ri m i natory pract i ce was av ai l abl e that th e e m p loy er refu se d to u se . A d a ms , 46 9 F
. 3d at 613.

2. I ntervenor s’ Cl ai m on Ap peal A fter un d ergoing nu m erou s tran sform ations, in terven ors’ cl aim now asserts th at A ll state ’s ann ua l aw ard o fmer i t i nc r ea se s ba se d o n a pe r ce nt ag e of bas e paya nd i ts extern al sal ar y c om pari son pol i cy, al though neutr al o n their fac e, ha d a di spa r at e i m pac t o n wo m endur i ng th e c las s p er iod . In te rv en or s c laim t h at u n d isp u te d ev i-16 N o. 11

- 1273 dence shows thatge nd er-base d dispar i ti es i n earni ngs ex i s t e d a t the b e g i nn i ng o f the c l a s s pe r i o d and that these two pol i ci es f ai l ed to el i m i nate these di spari ti es. W i th r espectto the i nter nalpolicy, i nter venor s a l l ege that the a w ar d o fm er i t incre ase s ba sed o n perce ntage pay ca used fem ale m anage rs to r ecei ve sm al l eri ncre ase s inte rm s o f ac tu al d olla rs th an s i m ilar ly sit u at ed m ale m an agers. W ith resp ect to th e ext erna l p oli cy, int erven ors al l ege thatthe m ar ketanal ysi s co m pared the ave ra ge sal ar y b y j ob code t o the e xter nalm ar ketand adj usted w here the aver age sa l ar y fel lbel ow 10% of t he m ar ket ra te. Inter venor s cl aim t h at thi s pol i cy f ai l ed to co rr ect gender-base d ear ni ngs di spari ti es b ecause the aver age sal ar y w as ske w ed by dispr opor ti onate l y hi gh sa l ar i es f o r men.

3. W aiver A n alysis I t i s a w ell

- est abl i shed rul e that a rgum ents not ra i sed to th e d ist ric t c ou rtare w aiv ed on ap p ea l. Se eBr own v. Aut o. Com pone nts Hol di ng, LL C, 622 F
. 3d 685, 69 1 ( 7th C ir. 2 01 0); Robyn s v. Re l i anc eSt anda r d L i f eIns . Co. , 13 0 F
. 3d 12 31 , 1 23 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7)
. M o r eo ve r, e ve n a r g um ents that have been raised m ay sti l lbe w ai ved on a pp e a li fthe y a r e u nder de v e l o pe d, c o nc l us o r y, o r u ns up p or te d by law

. See U nite d State s v. B erkow itz , 92 7 F
. 2d 1376 , 13 84 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( “[ P]e rfunctor y a nd undevel oped ar gum ents, and ar gum ents that ar e un su pp or ted by p ertinen t au th ority, are w aived

. . . . ”); U nit e d S ta tes v . D un k el , 9 2 7F
. 2 d 9 5 5 , 9 5 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ A s k e l e tal

‘ ar gum ent, ’ r eal l y no thi ng m or e than an ass er ti on, does not prese rv e a cl ai m . ”)
. W e h ave al so re cogni zed thatN o. 11

- 1273 17

A lthoug h the sam e s et off act s can give r is e t o cl aim s und er 3 both intent i ona l an d uni nt en t i ona l the or i es ofdi s c ri m i nat i on, see Int’ l B hd
. o

f Team st ers , 43 1 U .S. at 33 5 n .15, plain tiff on ly us ed the f ac t s t o de velop h erpat t er n- or - pra c t i c e c l ai m . The f ac t ual al l eg at i ons s ec t i on ofpl ai nt i ff’ s c om pl ai ntr efer s t o the “p atter n-or -pra ctic e ” of discr im ina tion at A llstate at least (co n tin u ed ...) ra i si ng an i ssue i n gene ra l t er m s i s no t s uffi ci ent t o p re se rv e s p ec ific a rg u m en ts th at w er e n otp re vio u sly p re se n te d

. See F e d n a v In t ’ l L t d
. v . C o n t ’ l In s . C o. , 62 4 F
. 3d 834, 84 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. S i m i l ar l y, w e hav e a nnounced th at “[ i ] t i s th e par ti es ’ r es po ns ibi l i tyt o a l l eg e f ac ts a nd in d i c a t e th eir rele va n c e u n d er th e c or re c t le ga l st an d ar d .” E co n. Fo ldi ng B o x C o rp. v. A nc ho r Fro z en Fo o ds C o rp . , 51 5 F
. 3d 718, 72 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng A P S Sports Co ll ec ti bles, Inc. v. Sports Tim e, Inc. , 2 99 F.3d 624 , 631 (7th C ir. 2002)) ( interna lquo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed) ( fi ndi ngwai ve r where pla i nti ffar gued f orr eve rs albas ed on a gr ou n d n ot prese n te d b e l o w ). A lth ou gh p lain tiff is n ota p ar ty to th is ap p ea l, in te rv en or s s ta n d in p lain tiff’s sh oe s a n d ca n on ly p re se n t a rg u m en ts th at sh e cou ld h av e a p p ea led

. S e eC h a mp v. Siege l Tr adi ng Co. , 5 5 F
. 3d 26 9, 2 73

- 74 ( 7th Ci r . 1995). Because pl ai nti ffnegl ecte d to ar gue the di spara te im p act th eo ry be for e t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, i t is w aiv ed on ap p ea l. Pl ai nt i ffr e pe a t e dl y a nd a l mos te xc l us i v e l y a r g ue d t o the di str i ct c ourtthatshe w as see ki ng cl ass cer ti fi cati on u n d e r a p a t t e r n - o r - p r a c t i c e th e o r y . A l th o u g hhe r c o mpla i nt all ege d both “ differ enti altr eat m ent a nd di spara te im p ac t t h e o r i es of liab ility ,” A m . C om p l. ¶ 53 , sh e o n ly provi ded f actualall ega ti ons and l ega lar gum ents to s u p p o r t h e r p a t t e r n - o r - p r a c t i c e c l a i m. S h e d i d n o t ar g ue 318 N o. 11

- 1273

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 e i g h tt i me s b u tr e fe r s n o to n c e t o “ d i s p a r a t e i mp a c t
. ” A m. Co m pl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 26, 35. To the cont ra ry , p lai nti ffargued that All st ate’ s com pensa- 4 tio n polic ie s w ere n ot ge nderne ut ra l

. Pl

. ’ s Cor r. Se c ond Cl ass Cert. M em . 7, 12, 18. th atAl l s t a t e u t i l i z e d a f a c i a l l y n e u t r a le mpl o y men t p olic y t h at res u lte d in a d isp ar at e im p ac t, an d sh e d id 4 n otcit e a n y d isp ar at e im p ac t c as es . I n h er ori g i na lmot i o n fo r c l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n, pl ainti ffc ons ist en tly fr amed h erc l ai m a s o ne o fi nt en ti onaldi scr i m i nati on: “Puffer br i ngs thi s ca se as a pattern-o r- pract i ce c ase , and has the prim a facie b ur den of showing that unlawfuldi scr i m i nati on b ase d up on s ex wa s th e e mp l o y e r ’ s r e g u l a r p o l i c y . ” P l

. ’ s C l a s s C e r t
. Me m. 24 ; see also id. at 1 ( “A l l sta te steered w om en i nto these l o we r - p a y i n g, fe mal e - d o mi n a t e d j o b s . ” )
. P l a i n t i ffe mpha si ze d tha t “th e di spa r i ti es i n j o b as si g nm en t an d c om p en sa tio n res u lt fro m th e s tr on g p a t e rn alis tic cu lture a t A l l sta te. ” Id. at 1. S he ar gued that the “ or gani zati onalst ructur e v est s a l lautho ri ty to choos e, advance and com pensate sta ffi n the m al e- dom i nated, se n i or m anage r ra nks” and that th e “ em plo ym ent pol i ci es al l ow m anage m ent t o apply thei r own subj ecti ve vi ew s, witho ut expl anati on o r acco untabi l i ty, o fwh om to prom ote o r devel op. ” Id. Pl ai nti ffr eferre d t o her case as a “pa tt ern- o r - pr ac ti ce ” ca se r epe at edly whena r g ui ng that her propos ed cl as s s ati sfi es the c om m onal i ty, pre d o m in an c e, an d su p er iorit y re q u ire m en ts of R u le 2 3. See, e.g., id. at 24 , 26 (“ [ C ]las s-w id e p ro c ee d in gs w ou ld d efin i-N o. 11

- 1273 19

In re spo nd ing t o A ll st ate’ s w aiver argum ent, i nter venors 5 d o n ot d irect ou r atten tion to a n y d i sp ara te im p act a rg u m en ts m ade b y plaint iffi n supp ort ofher fir st m o tio n f or cl ass ce rtifi ca tio n . S ee Int ervenors’ Rep ly 22- 23. A ll st ate ass ert s incor rec tl y in i ts b ri efthat the phrase “dispa- 6 rat e i m pact” does notapp ear a si ngle t im e i n plaint iff’ s se cond m ot i on f or c l as s ce rt i fi c at i on. The m ot i on s t at es : “P l ai nt i ffal l eg es , am ong othe r things , thatAl l s t at e en gage d i n a pat t er n o r pra c t i c e ofi nt en tional ge nderdi s c ri m i nat i on and e m pl oy e d c ompe ns a t i onpo l i c i e s a nd pr a c t i c e s tha th ad a d ispa ra te im p ac t on w om en m anagers . . . . ” Pl. ’ s Co rr. Sec

ond M ot. C l as s Ce rt
. 2 ( em phas i s adde d)

. Notwi ths t andi ng A ll st ate’ s erroneous ass ert ion, plai nti ff’ s si ng u lar referenc e to “ d ispa rate im p a c t ” i s no t suffi cien t to p reserv e this th eo ry o f lia b ili ty for ap p ea l. S ee B erk ow itz , 927 F. 2d at 1384. ti vel y s ett l e the co m m on patt er n-o r- pract i ce i ssue. ”) , 27

- 29; Pl

. ’ s Cl ass Cert
. Repl y 25

- 26. But pla i nti ff’ s fi rs t cl ass cer ti fi cati on m oti on a nd m em or andu m are voi d of any a llegati ons re l ate d to a theor y o funi ntenti onaldi scrim ination, w hich i s the only theory th at interve nors ra ise on ap p ea l. 5 S i m i l ar l y, i n h ers ec o nd mot i o n fo r c l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n, pl aint i ffasserted in o ne s en te nc e th ats he was a l l eg i ng both dis parat e i m pact and di ffer enti altr eat m ent c l ai m s, 6 bu t she f ail ed to sup p ort this b a r e a nd conc lusory asse rti o n. I n th e m emor an dum , sh e f o cus ed he r a l l eg at i o ns o n Al l st at e’ s uni f o r m c o m pen sa ti o n po l i ci es , b uts he n ow h er e la b ele d th is c laim as a d isp ar at e im p ac t c laim an d s he no wher e ci te d t o dispa r at e i m pac t ca se l aw. Inst ea d, she r epe at edly c ha r ac te r i ze d he r c l ai m a s a pat te r no r - p r a c tic e c laim , s e e, e . g. , Pl

. ’ s Cor r. S eco nd Cl ass Cert
.20 N o. 11

- 1273 M em . a t 12 -18 , an d sh e re lied on ca se s t h at ex c lu siv ely d isc u ss int en tio n al d isc rim in at ion
. Se e, e . g. , i d. at17
. The dis tr i ct c ourtacknow l edged thatpl ainti ffal l ege d b o th d i s p a r a t e t r e a t me n ta n d d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc l a i ms i n h erc o m pl aint, a nd the c o ur t br i efl y a d dr es se d the l ega ldi stincti ons between these tw o cl ai m s. The di str i ct cou rt, h ow ever, al m ost ex clusively ana lyzed plaintiff’s dis pa r a t e t r e a t men tc l a i m. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n ot dist i ngui sh the i ntenti onaland uninte nti onaldi scr i m i nati o n the o r i es w he n fi ndi nga l ac ko fc o m m o na l i tya nd predom i nance. The co urt sta ted thatthe proposed cl ass m em ber s would nee d to prove the i nd i vi d u al i zed i ssue ofd i scr i m i natory m oti ve, even though the c ourthad note d el sewhere that “m oti ve i s i rr el evant ” in dis parat e i m pact cl ai m s a nd thatbusi ness necess i ty

— a no n- i ndi v i dual i ze d i ss ue

— i s the o nl y d efense ava i l abl e t o re but a pr i m a f ac ie di spa r at e i m pac t cl ai m . The min i m ala tt en ti on that th e di str i ct c ourtga ve to pla i nti ff’ s di spara te i m pac t cl ai m c anb e di r ec tly a ttribute d t o the s ca nt su p p ort tha t p la in tiff p rovide d f or this clai m . Plaintiff o n l y s u ffi c i e n t l y d e v e l o p e d h e rc l a i m o fi n t e n t i o n a ld i s c r i minati on

— thus , th i s i s th e o nl y cl ai m th at th e di st r i ctcou rt fully a dd re sse d and the onl y c l ai m thati s p re served f or ap p ea l. I n P ond v. M ich el in North Am er ica, Inc. , we deter m i ned th a tp l a i n t i ffh a d wa i v e d h e r d i s p a r a t e i mpa c ta r g um ent b ecause h er r eli ance on the M cDonne l l D ougl as fram ew ork i n herbr i efin g dem onst ra ted thatshe w as ra i si ng so l el y a cl ai m o fdi spara te tr ea tm en t. 183 F. 3d 592, 59 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. W e found her tw o re fer ence s t o supp or t in the re cor d to be insuffi c ien t, sta ti ng tha tN o. 11

- 1273 21

Eve n i fwe h a d n otf ound the d is pa r a t e i m pa c tc l a i m t o be 7 w aived, thi s cl aim w ould fal l shorto n i ts m eri ts
. Int ervenors bear the bu rden of es tabli shi ng “ a caus al connect ion between th e e mpl o y me n tp r a c t i c e a n d th e s t a t i s t i c a l d i s p a r i t y , o ff er i ng
‘ s t at i s t i c al evi denc e of a ki nd and degr ee s uffi c i en t to s how tha t the p rac tice in qu estion ha s cau sed the exc lusio n o f ap p lic ant s f or j obs or pr om ot i on bec aus e ofthe ir m em beri n a pr o te ct ed group . ’ ” B en n ett, 29 5 F
. 3d a t69 8 ( quo t i ng Vi t ug v. M u ltis ta te Ta x C o m m ’n , 88 F. 3d 506, 513 ( 7th Cir

. 1996) )
. T hey have n o t m et thi s bu rden, nor have they es tabli shed that thei r proposed clas s sat is fie s R ule 23. (co n tin u ed ...) “[ a] r g ume nt s n o tr a i s e d in di s t r i c tc o ur ta r e wa i ved on a pp eal, as ar e a rgu m en ts ra i sed i n a c oncl usor y o r und er devel oped m anner. ” Id. ( ci ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. The prese nt c as e i s a nal ogo us: pl ai nti ffr epeate dlyl abel ed he r case as a p attern -or- p r a c t ice case, and i nt erven ors are un able to point to any factu al o r l egal sup p ort that pla i nti ffr ai sed in sup porto fa dispar ate i m pact cl ai m . The few b ar e as se r ti o ns a r e si m pl y no t en o ug h. W hi l e we r ec o g ni ze the di ffi cul typr es en te d b y shifting l ega ldoctr in e, i nter venor s s ti l l“ca nnot chang e co urse o n a ppea lt o r ai se an a rgum en t di ffer en t th anthe o ne prese nted to the dist ri ct c ourt
. ” M M G Fin
. C o rp. v. M idw est A m us e m e nts Park, LL C, 6 30 F
. 3d 65 1, 6 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 010). Pl aint i ffdi d no t m ea ni ng ful l y de ve l op an a r g um en t seeking certification base d on a d ispa rate im p act th eory of liab ility

. See Econ. Fol di ng Box C orp. , 51 5 F
. 3d at 720- 21. W e there f or e co ncl ud e that inter venor s’ di spara te i mpa c tc l a i m i s wa i v e d. 722 N o. 11

- 1273

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 The r ec o rd d oes not s up port i nter venors’ cl aim that All s t at e’ s c om pen s at i on pol i c i es ar e uni f or m l y a ppl i ed a nd c aus e ge nder

-bas ed e ar ni ng di s par i t i es . I nt er venor s pr es en tus w ith the sam e ex pert t es ti m ony and rec ord evid ence that p l a i n t i ff p r e v i o u sl y p r e se n t e d w h e n a r g u i n g th a tA l l st a t e ’s salar y d ecision s a r e d ecen traliz ed , d iscretion ary , an d p artia lly based on subjec ti ve crite ria. Int ervenors have not es tabli shed thatAl l s t at e adhe re s t o a uni f or m s al ar y a dm i ni s t ra t i on polic y. M ore i m portantl y, intervenors have not es tabli shed thatthe m eri t i ncreas e and m a rk et com paris on po li ci es are the c aus e ofthe e ar ni ngs di s par i t i es , as oppos ed t o a ny o f the othe r pol i c i es thatwer e al l eg ed o ri gi nal l y a nd thatthe expert s determ ined to be c auses ofthe dispari ty. Further m ore, bec ause i nter venors re ly on the s am e re port from D r. M add en th a t th e d ist ri ct co u rt cr iti ci z ed , t h ey ru n in to sim ila r d iffic ulti es s ati sfying t h e com m onali ty and p redom inance requ irem en ts. F o r exam p le, D r. M ad d en d id no t con sid er all rel evant variable s in one reg ress ion, nor did she anal yze w hethervariat ions i n perf orm ance l evels could exp lai n variation s in e a r nin g s. M or eo v er, ind iv id u al issues w ou ld certain ly p r e d o m ina te at the d am ag es p ha se. B ifurca tion of the liab ility a nd da m a ge s ph a s e s un de r Rul e 2 3 ( c ) ( 4 ) would n otr e s ol ve thi s concer n because int ervenors have not es tabli shed th at a un i f or m pol i c y c aus ed the di s par i t y.

3- 27- 12 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.