Full US Appeals Court Will Look at Scope of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, will take up Dale Kleber's case against CareFusion Corp. The longtime attorney sued the company after he wasn't hired for a senior counsel position that included a seven-year experience cap.
June 22, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court said Friday it will rehear the case of an Illinois lawyer who claimed he didn't get a job because he had too many years of experience, a dispute that tests the power of job applicants, not just current employees, to sue employers for alleged age discrimination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, will take up Dale Kleber's case against CareFusion Corp. The longtime attorney sued the company after he wasn't hired for a senior counsel position that included a seven-year experience cap.
A three-judge panel, ruling for Kleber in April, said the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects both outside job applicants and current employees. CareFusion's lawyers at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart had asked the full appeals court to toss the panel decision and rehear the dispute. New Jersey-based Becton, Dickinson and Co. is the parent corporation of CareFusion.
CareFusion's attorneys argued the panel decision “conflicts with multiple prior judicial decisions, creates a circuit split, threatens serious adverse consequences for employers, and is wrong on the merits.” The attorneys pointed to, among other things, an Eleventh Circuit ruling in 2016—Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco—that barred would-be employees from suing.
Kleber, who has more than 25 years experience in the law and business, sued CareFusion in 2015. Kleber, who was 59 then, said he was not contacted for an interview and cited the “seven-year” experience cap listed in the job posting.
The company's attorneys contend that the in-house counsel post was an “entry-level position that would have less complex job duties” and would be under the supervision of a higher-level attorney. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, earlier filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of CareFusion.
Kleber's lawyers at the AARP Foundation had urged the appeals court to keep in place the panel's decision. They argued that disparate-impact claims under the ADEA “are just now beginning to emerge throughout the country” and that district courts in the Fifth and Ninth circuits have said job applicants could pursue age-discrimination claims.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and worker-friendly advocates have trained a new focus in recent years on employment practices that can weed out older workers on the front-end. These include online applications that include required graduate dates, campus recruiting and maximum years of experience.
The number of age discrimination claims is expected to rise, with 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, according to a 2010 Pew Research Center report. As of 2015, about 33 million Americans over age 55 were in the workforce, and that demographic is expected to make up a quarter of the entire U.S. labor force by 2019.
Read more:
Age Discrimination Law Protects Applicants, Not Just Employees: US Appeals Court
Hiring, Not Firing, Is a New Focus in Age Discrimination Suits
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
3 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250