Opinion ID: 153004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Class Members' Disparate Impact Claim

Text: Class members' disparate impact claim is easier to parse. In Segar, we held a class of plaintiffs alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination may also challenge the disparate impact of specific employment practices. Segar, 738 F.2d at 1266-67. To establish a prima facie disparate impact claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff is not required to offer evidence the employer's action was the result of discriminatory intent, see Krodel v. Young, 748 F.2d 701, 709 (D.C.Cir.1984), but need only offer statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show the employment decision disproportionately impacts older employees, id.; see also Koger, 98 F.3d at 639. As we explained in Segar, by challenging the effect of specific employment practices, plaintiffs alleging disparate impact, like those in a disparate treatment pattern or practice case, are alleging the employer's practices have had a systemic adverse effect on members of the class. See Moore v. Summers, 113 F.Supp.2d 5, 19 (D.D.C.2000) (noting `an important point of convergence' between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims exists in class actions . . . [b]ecause both . . . claims `are attacks on the systemic results of employment practices [and] proof of each claim will involve a showing of disparity between the minority and majority groups in an employer's workforce' (quoting Segar, 738 F.2d at 1267)). In their amended complaint, class members allege the 2005 RIF had a discriminatory impact against plaintiffs and other employees over the age of 50. Am. Compl. ¶ 86. At the summary judgment stage, they again argued FDIC's actions disparately affected older employees and offered statistical evidence to support their claim. See Pls.' Opp'n at 9-13. The district court, however, concluded class members' statistics were invalid and established no disparate impact. Aliotta, 576 F.Supp.2d at 126-28. In the alternative, the district court held FDIC had articulated a reasonable factor other than age, to wit, the reduced workload in DRR, that the class members failed to rebut. Id. at 127. Class members unsuccessfully challenged the court's holding in their motion to alter or amend the judgment and now continue to defend their claim of disparate impact on appeal.