SAN FRANCISCO—At a hearing Tuesday afternoon, the federal judge overseeing a lawsuit claiming accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP systematically weeded out older candidates from entry-level positions gave few clues about whether he will certify a class.

But U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California, who is considering the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a class to pursue age discrimination claims against PwC, did indicate plaintiffs are likely to get another shot even if he denies class certification.

“If that happens, it would be without prejudice,” said Tigar, of the possibility of denying class cert. “I'm also very unlikely to decide for myself what a better group is.”

With that said, Tigar told plaintiffs counsel, Outten & Golden's Melissa Stewart, that he's concerned their class definition would sweep in older candidates not qualified for the PwC positions they applied for.

“Unqualified applicants are not entitled to relief and plaintiffs don't say otherwise,” Tigar said. “They say, 'Can we please deal with this later?'”

Later in the hearing, Tigar confronted PwC's lawyer, Emily Nicklin of Kirkland & Ellis, with data from one of the plaintiffs' experts who calculated younger candidates are 538 percent more likely to be hired than people over 40.

But Nicklin said that while the plaintiffs could show PwC had nationwide hiring practices and an active on-campus recruiting program to hire associates straight out of college, they couldn't show those policies were discriminatory.

“What is clear is that the evidence put before you, if fairly read, doesn't give rise to the inference that the company is discriminating against people based on age,” Nicklin said.

Tigar didn't indicate which way he is leaning in the case, which tests the bounds of federal age discrimination law, and discouraged the few members of the press and public gathered for the hearing from reading too much into his questions.

But the case, Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, is one of several pending in courts across the country that target alleged hiring discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Court filings from the plaintiffs lawyers estimate the class could be as large as 14,000. Outten & Golden's Stewart said Tuesday that 12,169 older candidates who attempted to apply for positions at PwC were passed over during the period covered by the lawsuit.

In their motion opposing class certification, PwC's lawyers insist the plaintiffs did not prove there was any decision, policy or plan that justified certifying the class. PwC's lawyers also argued that many of the actions, including college recruiting, are lawful, while others lack supporting evidence and some of the plaintiffs would not have passed the company's initial hiring screening process.

In a 2013 study of its workforce, PwC reported that two-thirds of its employees were in their 20s and early 30s, 75 percent of whom were hired directly out of college. It estimated in that report that by 2016, almost 80 percent of its workforce would be “millennials,” born between 1980 and 1995. The court documents cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that show the median age of accountants and auditors in the U.S. is 46, and only 30 percent are millennials.

In a statement to The Recorder, Nicklin said “PwC is fortunate to be a sought-after employer. We receive about 300,000 applications each year and hire fewer than 5 percent of those who apply. Our hiring practices are merit-based. They have nothing to do with age and we will prove that in court.”

The statement continued: “Like many large employers, PwC recruits at the nation's colleges and universities, an approach that is widely recognized to be both efficient and effective. There are many ways to apply for a job at PwC, not just through the campus hiring process. We have applicants of all ages and experience levels. We pride ourselves on the quality of our hires and the diversity of our workforce.”