The Honorable James E. Shadid, Chief Judge for the 

United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois,

sitting by designation.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 11-1273

KATHERINE PUFFER,

Plaintiff,

and

KAREN PELL, et al.,

 Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:04-cv-05764—Jeffrey T. Gilbert, Magistrate Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 23, 2012—DECIDED MARCH 27, 2012

Before FLAUM and TINDER, Circuit Judges, and SHADID,

District Judge.


2 No. 11-1273

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Katherine Puffer sued Allstate

Insurance Company (“Allstate”) on behalf of herself

and a putative class, alleging that Allstate carried out a

nationwide pattern or practice of sex discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29

U.S.C. § 206(d). In her complaint, she alleged gender-based

earning disparities rooted in differential treatment and

disparate impact theories based on Allstate’s salary,

promotion, and training policies, which left significant

discretion in the hands of individual managers. The

district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In response to the concerns expressed by the court

and in response to the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair

Pay Act of 2009, Pub L. No. 111-2 (the “Ledbetter Act”),

plaintiff again moved for class certification. This time, she

focused exclusively on Allstate’s uniform compensation

policies. The court again denied certification, citing flaws

in plaintiff’s evidence and the lack of common issues.

Puffer then settled her individual claims with Allstate.

Karen Pell, Gail Howells, and Mary Keith, members of

the putative class, intervened to appeal the denials of

class certification. These intervenors now allege only a

disparate impact theory, claiming that Allstate’s policy of

awarding merit increases based on a percentage of base

pay and Allstate’s policy of comparing salaries to its competitors caused gender-based disparities in earnings.

We shall not reach the merits of this claim, however.

We conclude that intervenors have waived their disparate impact claim by failing to meaningfully develop
No. 11-1273 3

it before the district court. Although plaintiff nominally

mentioned a disparate impact claim in her complaint,

she developed and argued only her pattern-or-practice

claim—a type of intentional discrimination. We therefore

affirm the district court’s denial of class certification.

I. Background

A. Allstate’s Corporate Structure and Policies

Allstate Insurance Company is headquartered in Illinois

and employs 38,000 people throughout the country. In

2002, Allstate created an operating unit called Allstate

Protection, which employs approximately 80% of Allstate’s

personnel. Allstate Protection is organized into different

Areas of Responsibility (“AORs”). The four largest AORs

are Claims, Product Operations, Protection Finance, and

Distribution.

Responsibilities, supervisors, office locations, and

salary grades vary among these AORs. The Claims AOR

handles insurance claims and employs approximately

17,000 people as attorneys, human resources professionals, information technology specialists, claims investigators, claims and subrogation service managers,

and project managers. The Product Operations AOR creates

insurance products, prices products, assesses risk, updates

Allstate’s insurance policies, and communicates with

customers. Among its employees are pricing directors,

actuaries, product operations managers, and personal

line directors and managers. The Protection Finance

AOR provides financial support and typically employs

managers with finance or accounting degrees. The Dis-
4 No. 11-1273

tribution AOR works with the insurance agencies that

sell Allstate’s products by developing recognition plans,

directly supporting agents, and promoting business.

The hierarchical structure among the AORs is similar:

entry-level managers are at Salary Grades (“Grades”)

63 and 64; senior managers are at Grade 77; directors are

at Grade 78; appointed officer positions (Assistant Vice

President and Assistant Field Vice President) are at

Grade 80; and elected officer positions (Vice President,

Senior Vice President, and Senior Vice President) are

at Grade 90 and above. At the end of 2003, women comprised 61% of Protection employees but only 36% of the

managerial positions and 24% of the officer positions.

At the beginning of each year, managers meet with

their supervisors to discuss major job responsibilities

and individual performance goals. At the end of the

year, supervisors fill out performance development summaries for the managers they oversee. In a process

known as “one-over-one” review, supervisors submit the

performance summaries to their own superiors for input,

review, and approval before turning them over to the

evaluated managers. Allstate also evaluates its managers

based on 17 critical success factors and on Quality Leadership Management Surveys. These evaluations factor into

decisions about merit or promotional salary increases

for managers.

Allstate Protection is allotted a percentage amount

of money annually for merit or promotional salary increases. Allstate’s Human Resources department establishes

an overall range of salary increases in terms of a percentage
No. 11-1273 5

amount for each performance and salary level. These

guidelines are suggestions, leaving supervisors with the

discretion to grant more or less of an increase based on

performance. Salary increases for officers follow a

similar process except that the senior management team

makes the decisions.

B. Procedural Background

Katherine Puffer, the original plaintiff in this suit, worked

at Allstate from 1977 to 2003. She primarily worked in the

Finance AOR, but she also worked in the Production

Operations AOR. By 1993, Puffer had been promoted

eight times.

Puffer alleged that she was sexually harassed by her

supervisor from late-1998 to mid-1999 and that she was

not promoted because she rejected her supervisor’s advances and because of her gender. She filed a charge

of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in January 2001, but she did not file

a lawsuit within the required time period after receiving

a right to sue letter. In 2003, Puffer was terminated as

part of a reorganization and officer reduction in force.

Fourteen officers, including Puffer, were terminated at

that time: eleven were male and three were female. Puffer

filed a new charge with the EEOC, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, and she then timely filed

the complaint in this case.

In her amended complaint, Puffer asserted three

claims. First, she alleged that Allstate discriminated
6 No. 11-1273

against her and a class of female managerial employees

because of their gender and allowed the discrimination

“to exist and go unremedied for so long that it amounts

to a policy or practice and constitutes Allstate’s standard

operating procedure.” Am. Compl. ¶ 38. She alleged

this claim under both “differential treatment and

disparate impact theories of liability under Title VII.” Id.

¶ 53. Second, Puffer alleged a class claim under the

Equal Pay Act, contending that Allstate pays putative

class members “lower wages than male employees in

substantially equal jobs even though Plaintiffs and all

others similarly situated performed similar duties requiring the same skill, effort, and responsibility of male

employees” and performed “substantially equal work.”

Id. ¶¶ 57, 59. Third, Puffer alleged an individual claim

of retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

At the time Pufferfiled her complaint, case law supported

the “paycheck accrual rule,” such that a new claim under

Title VII arose each time an employer issued a paycheck

reflecting discriminatory wages, even if the discriminatory decision setting the amount occurred outside the

limitations period (i.e., more than 300 days before the

filing of the first EEOC charge). But in 2007, in Ledbetter v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court held that

present effects of a discriminatory decision that predated

the limitations period could no longer form the basis for

Title VII liability. 550 U.S. 618, 632, 643 (2007).

On November 8, 2007, after substantial discovery,

Puffer moved for class certification pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of her Title
No. 11-1273 7

In 2006, Allstate apparently adjusted the earnings levels of 1

women to eliminate observed gender disparities within job

codes.

VII claims. She sought to certify a class of approximately

1700 female managers in the position of division or department manager (Grade 63) and above who worked

or continue to work at Allstate Protection since May 9,

2001. Members of the putative class held 275 different

jobs in a hundred offices across the country. Eighty

percent of the putative class was employed in entry-level management positions, with the remainder of

the class in higher management and officer positions.

Plaintiff argued that Allstate has a “strong paternalistic

culture” and further that “Allstate Protection’s organizational structure vests all authority to choose, advance

and compensate staff in the male-dominated, senior

manager ranks.” Pl.’s Class Cert. Mem. 1.

The parties briefed the class certification motion for

nearly a year. They offered the opinions of two statisticians, two sociologists, two industrial psychologists,

and 84 fact witnesses. Plaintiff’s main expert, Dr. Janice

Madden, presented statistical evidence indicating that, from

2001 through 2005, women earned substantially lower 1

wages than men did at every salary grade—even after

accounting for job code, tenure, and other variables.

Plaintiff also presented the expert report of Dr. Cristina G.

Banks, an industrial and organizational psychologist,

and Dr. Barbara Reskin, a sociologist. Allstate countered

with analysis from its own experts, including labor econo-
8 No. 11-1273

mist Dr. Robert Topel, industrial psychologist Dr.

Kathleen K. Lundquist, and sociologist Dr. Christopher

Winship.

On January 15, 2009, Magistrate Judge Schenkier

denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The

42-page opinion discussed the pattern-or-practice claim

almost exclusively, mentioning the disparate impact

claim in a footnote but providing no separate analysis.

Although the court found that the putative class

satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity and adequacy requirements, the court found that it failed to satisfy the commonality requirement. The court stressed the heterogeneity

of the class members and the individual decisionmakers.

The court found plaintiff’s expert reports only minimally

probative of commonality and found the declarations

to demonstrate a lack of commonality. The court discounted

Dr. Madden’s statistical analysis because it included

wage differentials that predated the class period (contrary

to Ledbetter), because it failed to account for “measures of

productivity,” and because it revealed significant variations in the standard deviations between salary grades.

The court also determined that plaintiff failed to meet

the typicality requirement because the claims and defenses would necessitate individualized inquiries.

The district court concluded that, even if plaintiff

could satisfy commonality and typicality, she failed to show

that certification was proper under either Rule 23(b)(2) or

(b)(3). The court rejected the propriety of a Rule 23(b)(2)

class since plaintiff sought primarily money damages. The

court also found a Rule 23(b)(3) class to be inappropriate,
No. 11-1273 9

Twenty-five members of the putative class later pursued 2

individual claims.

concluding that common issues did not predominate

based on the individualized inquiries that would be

necessary to determine the reason for each employment

action. The court determined that a class action was not

the superior means to adjudicate the claim because 1700

individual jury trials would be needed to decide damages,

constitutional questions would arise by having different

juries examine the liability issue, and the individual

class members had sufficiently large stakes to be able to

afford to litigate on their own.2

Soon after the district court’s decision, President

Obama signed the Ledbetter Act, effectively overruling

the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision and retroactively

reinstating the paycheck accrual rule.

On September 11, 2009, plaintiff moved again for class

certification and argued that the court should reconsider

the evidence submitted in light of the Ledbetter Act.

She substantially narrowed her argument in this motion,

arguing only that Allstate’s uniform annual salary

review and competitive pay analysis disadvantaged

female managers. Although she used the terms “disparate

impact” and “pattern-or-practice” to describe her claims

in her motion for class certification, her supporting memorandum discussed factual allegations and legal arguments only in support of the pattern-or-practice claim.

On October 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge Schenkier issued

an extensive oral decision denying plaintiff’s second
10 No. 11-1273

motion for certification. The court acknowledged that

plaintiff had made a “genuine effort” to address his concerns but concluded that the renewed motion still

failed to satisfy Rule 23. Regarding its commonality concerns, the court criticized Dr. Madden’s analysis for

failing to control for all of the variables, failing to

consider the influence of performance assessments on

salary differences, and failing to control for job location

(relevant for looking at the actions of particular supervisors). The court expressed that the significant variations

in standard deviations by salary grade suggested

that differentiations existed that were not adequately

explained by the statistical analysis. The court was not

persuaded by plaintiff’s narrowing of the class certification claim to external review of salary decisions because

the court found it to be inseparable from internal issues

and because Dr. Madden’s analysis had examined both.

The court did not address the effect of the Ledbetter

Act since unrelated deficiencies convinced the court

that plaintiff failed to establish commonality. Although

plaintiff eliminated her claim for compensatory damages,

the court still determined that the putative class failed

to meet Rule 23(b)(2) because backpay would be substantial (possibly $85 million) and because declaratory relief

would be only backwards-looking. The court also expressed concern about the lack of an opt-out right.

The court likewise found Rule 23(b)(3) to be an inappropriate basis for certification based on its previous concerns about predominance and superiority.

Puffer’s case was then transferred to Magistrate

Judge Gilbert. On January 7, 2011, Puffer settled her
No. 11-1273 11

individual claims with Allstate. The court dismissed her

case with prejudice, thus making the denials of class

certification final and appealable.

Putative class members Karen Pell, Mary Keith,

and Gail Howells moved to intervene to appeal the

January 15, 2009 and October 8, 2009 denials of class

certification. Pell worked for Allstate from 1973 to 1989

and again from 1995 to 2006, in three northeastern states.

She briefly worked as a Frontline Performance Leader

(Grade 63) before being demoted to a desk position

in 2005. Keith worked for Allstate from 1980 to 2009,

predominantly in the Finance AOR. She last worked as a

Director in Finance (Grade 78). Howells worked for

Allstate from 1984 to 2006, primarily in the Distribution

AOR in the South West Region. She worked in several

Grade 64 management positions. Magistrate Judge Gilbert granted their motion to intervene on January 28, 2011.

Intervenors appeal only the denial of certification

for the Title VII disparate impact challenge under

Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (c)(4). They claim that Allstate’s

salary administration process, which determines merit

increases based on a percentage of base pay and an external

market comparison, had a disparate impact on female

managers between 2002 and 2005. They do not appeal

the denial of class certification as to the pattern-orpractice claim of intentional discrimination, in light of

the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). They rely on the statistical

reports from Dr. Madden, but they do not rely on the

report of Dr. Banks, who had stated that bias stems
12 No. 11-1273

from the exercise of discretion and that performance

evaluations are not conducted consistently between

regions or supervisors, or on the report of Dr. Reskin,

who has opined that Allstate has a paternalistic culture

and that the exercise of discretion contributes to the

systematic disadvantage of the female managers.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for

class certification for an abuse of discretion, but we

review the court’s purely legal determinations de novo.

Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 545 F.3d 570, 573 (7th

Cir. 2008). A plaintiff who moves for class certification

must satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and

adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a),

as well as at least one subsection of Rule 23(b). FED. R.

CIV. P. 23; see also Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 797

(7th Cir. 2008).

Intervenors argue for de novo review, contending

that the district court applied the wrong standard under

Lewis v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010), and that

we should reconsider their claim in light of Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). In particular,

intervenors argue that the district court failed to

analyze plaintiff’s disparate impact claim separately from

her pattern-or-practice claim. We fully recognize this

argument, but, as we explain in the following section,

we conclude that the district court’s approach resulted
No. 11-1273 13

from plaintiff’s insufficient presentation of the disparate

impact claim.

B. Waiver of Disparate Impact Claim

Allstate contends that plaintiff failed to adequately

present a disparate impact claim based on a uniform

salary administration policy to the district court such

that intervenors are now barred from making such a claim

on appeal. After reviewing the motions and memoranda

filed by plaintiff, we agree with Allstate that plaintiff

did not adequately present her disparate impact claim

to the district court. Because plaintiff did not preserve

this claim, intervenors may not rely on it as the basis

for their appeal. The waived disparate impact claim is

the only claim that intervenors appeal, and therefore

we must affirm the district court’s denial of certification. 

1. Legal Framework

Disparate impact claims require no proof of discriminatory motive and “involve employment practices that are

facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but

that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another

and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Int’l Bhd.

of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15 (1977).

By contrast, differential treatment claims, also known

as disparate treatment claims, require plaintiffs to prove

discriminatory motive or intent. See id. at 335-36.

Pattern-or-practice claims, like differential treatment

claims, represent a theory of intentional discrimination.
14 No. 11-1273

Council 31, Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO

v. Ward, 978 F.2d 373, 378 (7th Cir. 1992). Pattern-or-practice

claims require a “showing that an employer regularly

and purposefully discriminates against a protected

group.” Id.; see also King v. Gen. Elec. Co., 960 F.2d 617, 623

(7th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs must prove that discrimination

“was the company’s standard operating procedure—the

regular rather than the unusual practice.” Int’l Bhd. of

Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336; see also id. at 360 (“[A]t the

liability stage of a pattern-or-practice trial the focus often

will not be on individual hiring decisions, but on a pattern of discriminatory decisionmaking.”). As one circuit

has observed, “[i]n every instance in which the phrase

has been used by the Supreme Court, a ‘pattern or practice’

claim under Title VII refers to a pattern or practice of

disparate treatment, rather than disparate impact.”

Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 817 n.20 (1st Cir. 1998); see

also Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 409 (5th

Cir. 1998) (referring to a pattern-or-practice claim as a

“systemic disparate treatment theory”). We have referred

to a pattern-or-practice case as a “means of proving intentional discrimination [that] is distinct from a disparate

impact case, where the plaintiff need not make any showing

of the employer’s intent.” Council 31, 978 F.2d at 378.

For disparate impact claims, a plaintiff must establish

that a particular employment practice causes a disparate

impact on a member of a protected class. 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(k); Adams v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 609, 613

(7th Cir. 2006). To satisfy this burden, the plaintiff is

“responsible for isolating and identifying the specific

employments practices that are allegedly responsible

for any observed statistical disparities.” Watson v. Fort
No. 11-1273 15

Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988); Bennett v.

Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 698 (7th Cir. 2002). Notably, “it is

not enough to simply allege that there is a disparate

impact on workers, or point to a generalized policy

that leads to such an impact.” Smith v. City of Jackson,

544 U.S. 228, 241 (2005). Failure to identify the specific

practice could lead to employers being held liable

for “the myriad of innocent causes that may lead to statistical imbalances.” Watson, 487 U.S. at 994. The plaintiff

must also establish causation by “offer[ing] statistical

evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that

the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group.” Id. at 994-95. Only if the

plaintiff succeeds in establishing disparate impact does

the burden shift to the defendant-employer to demonstrate that the employment practice is “job related for the

position in question and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A); see also Lewis, 130 S. Ct. at

2198-99. If the employer satisfies this requirement, the

burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that an equally

valid and less discriminatory practice was available that

the employer refused to use. Adams, 469 F.3d at 613.

2. Intervenors’ Claim on Appeal

After undergoing numerous transformations, intervenors’ claim now asserts that Allstate’s annual award

of merit increases based on a percentage of base pay and

its external salary comparison policy, although neutral

on their face, had a disparate impact on women during

the class period. Intervenors claim that undisputed evi-
16 No. 11-1273

dence shows that gender-based disparities in earnings

existed at the beginning of the class period and that

these two policies failed to eliminate these disparities.

With respect to the internal policy, intervenors allege

that the award of merit increases based on percentage

pay caused female managers to receive smaller increases

in terms of actual dollars than similarly situated male

managers. With respect to the external policy, intervenors

allege that the market analysis compared the average

salary by job code to the external market and adjusted

where the average salary fell below 10% of the market

rate. Intervenors claim that this policy failed to correct

gender-based earnings disparities because the average

salary was skewed by disproportionately high salaries

for men.

3. Waiver Analysis

It is a well-established rule that arguments not raised

to the district court are waived on appeal. See Brown v.

Auto. Components Holding, LLC, 622 F.3d 685, 691 (7th

Cir. 2010); Robyns v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130

F.3d 1231, 1238 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, even arguments that have been raised may still be waived on

appeal if they are underdeveloped, conclusory, or unsupported by law. See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d

1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[P]erfunctory and undeveloped

arguments, and arguments that are unsupported

by pertinent authority, are waived . . . .”); United States

v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“A skeletal

‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does

not preserve a claim.”). We have also recognized that
No. 11-1273 17

Although the same set of facts can give rise to claims under 3

both intentional and unintentional theories of discrimination,

see Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 335 n.15, plaintiff only

used the facts to develop her pattern-or-practice claim. The

factual allegations section of plaintiff’s complaint refers to the

“pattern-or-practice” of discrimination at Allstate at least

(continued...)

raising an issue in general terms is not sufficient to

preserve specific arguments that were not previously

presented. See Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d

834, 841 (7th Cir. 2010). Similarly, we have announced

that “[i]t is the parties’ responsibility to allege facts and

indicate their relevance under the correct legal standard.”

Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d

718, 721 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting APS Sports Collectibles, Inc.

v. Sports Time, Inc., 299 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding waiver where

plaintiff argued for reversal based on a ground not presented below). Although plaintiff is not a party to this

appeal, intervenors stand in plaintiff’s shoes and can only

present arguments that she could have appealed. See Champ

v. Siegel Trading Co., 55 F.3d 269, 273-74 (7th Cir. 1995).

Because plaintiff neglected to argue the disparate impact

theory before the district court, it is waived on appeal.

Plaintiff repeatedly and almost exclusively argued to

the district court that she was seeking class certification

under a pattern-or-practice theory. Although her complaint alleged both “differential treatment and disparate

impact theories of liability,” Am. Compl. ¶ 53, she only

provided factual allegations and legal arguments to

support her pattern-or-practice claim. She did not argue 3
18 No. 11-1273

(...continued) 3

eight times but refers not once to “disparate impact.” Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 26, 35.

To the contrary, plaintiff argued that Allstate’s compensa- 4

tion policies were not gender neutral. Pl.’s Corr. Second Class

Cert. Mem. 7, 12, 18.

that Allstate utilized a facially neutral employment

policy that resulted in a disparate impact, and she did 4

not cite any disparate impact cases. 

In her original motion for class certification, plaintiff consistently framed her claim as one of intentional discrimination: “Puffer brings this case as a pattern-or-practice case, and has the prima facie burden of

showing that unlawful discrimination based upon sex

was the employer’s regular policy.” Pl.’s Class Cert. Mem.

24; see also id. at 1 (“Allstate steered women into these

lower-paying, female-dominated jobs.”). Plaintiff emphasized that “the disparities in job assignment and

compensation result from the strong paternalistic culture at Allstate.” Id. at 1. She argued that the “organizational structure vests all authority to choose, advance

and compensate staff in the male-dominated, senior

manager ranks” and that the “employment policies

allow management to apply their own subjective

views, without explanation or accountability, of whom

to promote or develop.” Id. Plaintiff referred to her case

as a “pattern-or-practice” case repeatedly when arguing

that her proposed class satisfies the commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23. See,

e.g., id. at 24, 26 (“[C]lass-wide proceedings would defini-
No. 11-1273 19

In responding to Allstate’s waiver argument, intervenors 5

do not direct our attention to any disparate impact arguments

made by plaintiff in support of her first motion for class certification. See Intervenors’ Reply 22-23.

Allstate asserts incorrectly in its brief that the phrase “dispa- 6

rate impact” does not appear a single time in plaintiff’s second motion for class certification. The motion states: “Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Allstate engaged in a

pattern or practice of intentional gender discrimination and

employed compensation policies and practices that had a

disparate impact on women managers . . . .” Pl.’s Corr. Second Mot. Class Cert. 2 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding

Allstate’s erroneous assertion, plaintiff’s singular reference

to “disparate impact” is not sufficient to preserve this

theory of liability for appeal. See Berkowitz, 927 F.2d at 1384.

tively settle the common pattern-or-practice issue.”), 27-

29; Pl.’s Class Cert. Reply 25-26. But plaintiff’s first

class certification motion and memorandum are void of

any allegations related to a theory of unintentional discrimination, which is the only theory that intervenors

raise on appeal.5

Similarly, in her second motion for class certification,

plaintiff asserted in one sentence that she was alleging

both disparate impact and differential treatment claims,6

but she failed to support this bare and conclusory assertion. In the memorandum, she focused her allegations

on Allstate’s uniform compensation policies, but she

nowhere labeled this claim as a disparate impact claim

and she nowhere cited to disparate impact case law. Instead, she repeatedly characterized her claim as a patternor-practice claim, see, e.g., Pl.’s Corr. Second Class Cert.
20 No. 11-1273

Mem. at 12-18, and she relied on cases that exclusively

discuss intentional discrimination. See, e.g., id. at 17.

The district court acknowledged that plaintiff alleged

both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims

in her complaint, and the court briefly addressed the

legal distinctions between these two claims. The district

court, however, almost exclusively analyzed plaintiff’s

disparate treatment claim. The district court did not

distinguish the intentional and unintentional discrimination theories when finding a lack of commonality and

predominance. The court stated that the proposed class

members would need to prove the individualized

issue of discriminatory motive, even though the court had

noted elsewhere that “motive is irrelevant” in disparate

impact claims and that business necessity—a non-individualized issue—is the only defense available to rebut a

prima facie disparate impact claim. The minimal attention that the district court gave to plaintiff’s disparate

impact claim can be directly attributed to the scant

support that plaintiff provided for this claim. Plaintiff

only sufficiently developed her claim of intentional discrimination—thus, this is the only claim that the district court

fully addressed and the only claim that is preserved for

appeal.

In Pond v. Michelin North America, Inc., we determined

that plaintiff had waived her disparate impact argument because her reliance on the McDonnell Douglas

framework in her briefing demonstrated that she was

raising solely a claim of disparate treatment. 183 F.3d

592, 597 (7th Cir. 1999). We found her two references to

support in the record to be insufficient, stating that
No. 11-1273 21

Even if we had not found the disparate impact claim to be 7

waived, this claim would fall short on its merits. Intervenors

bear the burden of establishing “a causal connection between

the employment practice and the statistical disparity, offering

‘statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show

that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotion because of their member in a

protected group.’ ” Bennett, 295 F.3d at 698 (quoting Vitug v.

Multistate Tax Comm’n, 88 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 1996)). They

have not met this burden, nor have they established that

their proposed class satisfies Rule 23.

(continued...)

“[a]rguments not raised in district court are waived

on appeal, as are arguments raised in a conclusory or

underdeveloped manner.” Id. (citation omitted). The

present case is analogous: plaintiff repeatedly labeled

her case as a pattern-or-practice case, and intervenors

are unable to point to any factual or legal support

that plaintiff raised in support of a disparate impact

claim. The few bare assertions are simply not enough.

While we recognize the difficulty presented by shifting

legal doctrine, intervenors still “cannot change course

on appeal to raise an argument different than the one

presented to the district court.” MMG Fin. Corp. v. Midwest

Amusements Park, LLC, 630 F.3d 651, 659 (7th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff did not meaningfully develop an argument

seeking certification based on a disparate impact theory

of liability. See Econ. Folding Box Corp., 515 F.3d at 720-

21. We therefore conclude that intervenors’ disparate

impact claim is waived.7
22 No. 11-1273

(...continued) 7

The record does not support intervenors’ claim that

Allstate’s compensation policies are uniformly applied and

cause gender-based earning disparities. Intervenors present us

with the same expert testimony and record evidence that

plaintiff previously presented when arguing that Allstate’s

salary decisions are decentralized, discretionary, and partially

based on subjective criteria. Intervenors have not established

that Allstate adheres to a uniform salary administration

policy. More importantly, intervenors have not established

that the merit increase and market comparison policies are

the cause of the earnings disparities, as opposed to any of

the other policies that were alleged originally and that the

experts determined to be causes of the disparity. Furthermore,

because intervenors rely on the same report from Dr. Madden

that the district court criticized, they run into similar difficulties satisfying the commonality and predominance requirements. For example, Dr. Madden did not consider all

relevant variables in one regression, nor did she analyze

whether variations in performance levels could explain variations in earnings. Moreover, individual issues would certainly

predominate at the damages phase. Bifurcation of the liability

and damages phases under Rule 23(c)(4) would not resolve

this concern because intervenors have not established that

a uniform policy caused the disparity.

3-27-12

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment

of the district court.