Opinion ID: 4305333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Specific Employment Practice or Policy

Text: The plaintiffs must “isolat[e] and identify[] the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.” Smith, 544 U.S. at 241 (quoting Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 656 (1989)). This requirement safeguards employers against liability “for the myriad of innocent causes that may lead to statistical imbalances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Caterpillar asserts that the cumulative effect of an “assortment of documents” does not constitute a single policy and that any age disparity is attributable to the definitions for retirement eligibility and for participation in the 8 No. 17-2956 unemployment plan. Both definitions predated the liquidation plan and neither depends solely on age. In support of this argument, Caterpillar cites the Supreme Court’s decisions in Smith v. City of Jackson and Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, but both cases are easily distinguishable. In Smith a city overhauled its police pay scale to match that of surrounding localities. The plaintiffs showed that the pay plan was “relatively less generous to older workers” but failed to identify any “test, requirement or practice” that caused the disparate impact. 544 U.S. at 241. Wards Cove presented a different problem. There the plaintiffs identified several employment practices—nepotism, a lack of objective hiring criteria, separate hiring channels, and rehire preferences—that possibly contributed to a disparate racial impact in violation of Title VII. 490 U.S. at 647–48. Their speculation as to possible causes was not enough; they failed to “specifically show[] that each challenged practice [had] a significantly disparate impact on employment opportunities.” Id. at 657. Here the plaintiffs have specifically identified a cause for the disparate impact: Caterpillar’s decision to condition benefits on retirement eligibility, a status strongly correlated with age. No more is required. Caterpillar also contends that the liquidation plan is a “one-off event” that does not constitute an actionable practice or policy. See, e.g., Tex. Dep’t of Housing & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2523 (2015) (A “onetime decision” to construct a new building in one location “may not be a policy at all.”). In the employment context, we have recognized that a single, isolated decision to hire or fire an employee may not amount to a policy in the absence of other evidence. See Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 698 (7th No. 17-2956 9 Cir. 2002) (holding that an employer’s rejection of an individual job applicant is not a policy); Ilhardt v. Sara Lee Corp., 118 F.3d 1151, 1156–57 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that the elimination of a single employee’s part-time position is not a policy). In contrast, a policy likely exists where employees “can show significant disparities stemming from a single decision.” Council 31, AFSCME v. Ward, 978 F.2d 373, 378 (7th Cir. 1992). Though the liquidation plan is a single event, it applies the same rules to hundreds of employees and causes significant age-based disparities between workers. It is an actionable policy.