Opinion ID: 4305333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subgroup Claims

Text: To prove a disparate-impact claim, the plaintiffs must show that Caterpillar’s liquidation plan has a disparate impact on them “because of” their membership in a protected group. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Tr., 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988) (discussing a Title VII disparate-impact claim). Under the ADEA, the protected group includes “individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Caterpillar makes a perfunctory argument that the proper statistical comparison is between those who are in the statutorily protected group (i.e., employees 40 years and older) and those who are not. O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996), forecloses this argument. In O’Connor a 56-year-old employee brought a disparate-treatment claim when he was No. 17-2956 11 replaced by a 40-year-old. Id. at 309–10. The Court found his claim cognizable, reasoning that the ADEA’s language does not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40 or older; it bans discrimination against employees because of their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older. The fact that one per- son in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is thus irrelevant[] so long as he has lost out because of his age. Id. at 312. The disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions are identically phrased with each requiring discrimination “because of such individual’s age.” See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (disparate treatment); id. § 623(a)(2) (disparate impact). The Court’s reasoning therefore applies with equal force to disparate-impact claims. See Karlo, 849 F.3d at 71 (reaching the same conclusion).