Opinion ID: 4305333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Statistical Comparison

Text: Caterpillar next argues that statistical comparisons between dissimilar groups cannot support a prima facie disparate-impact claim. For support Caterpillar cites Wards Cove where the Court rejected a comparison between the racial composition of a fish company’s skilled workers—including accountants, doctors, and engineers—and its unskilled cannery laborers. 490 U.S. at 651–52. The Court called the comparison “nonsensical” given the differently constituted labor pools. Id. at 615. Caterpillar asserts that this case is analogous: only retirement-eligible workers are susceptible to retirement 12 No. 17-2956 incentives, so it wouldn’t make sense to compare them to employees who are ineligible to retire. But Caterpillar overlooks stark differences between this case and Wards Cove. There are no inherent differences between the unemployment-plan participants who were eligible to retire and those who were not. They occupied the same factory jobs, were subject to the same compensation plan, and were entitled to the same benefits. Caterpillar simply offered a worse deal to a similarly situated group of employees.