Updated at 2:31 p.m.

A San Francisco federal judge Thursday denied class action status to potential job applicants over 40 years old who claim PricewaterhouseCoopers systematically weeds out older workers from consideration.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California said attorneys for Steven Rabin and John Chapman failed to prove how the proposed class members were similarly situated.

Tigar, who heard arguments on class certification in February, gave the plaintiffs another chance to construct a proposed class. He indicated some of the plaintiffs arguments were persuasive. The complaint alleged, among other things, PwC has uniform policies that lead to hiring younger workers.

The law firm Outten & Golden, representing the plaintiffs, pointed to on-campus recruiting efforts, witness declarations of comments made during initial screening and statistical analysis that purports to show the company's workforce skews young. The plaintiffs estimate that the class ranged from 12,000 to 14,000 potential job applicants who were either rejected or deterred because of the company's policies.

Tigar found that the plaintiffs have “adequately shown a uniform decision, policy or plan on the basis of PwC's centralized and uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age disparities in hiring.” The company's arguments to the contrary would be better addressed in later stages of the proceeding, he said.

Tigar denied certifying the collective at this point because deterred and unqualified candidates were included in the proposed class. The named plaintiffs applied for positions and were rejected, so therefore did not represent the entire proposed class, the judge said.

“Plaintiffs must find another way to challenge discrimination in the initial screen, either through its existing named plaintiffs—who were rejected at the initial screening stage for some jobs, although they were facially qualified—or through a different named plaintiff, if they wish to do so,” Tigar said.

Emily Nicklin of Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based trial counsel, argued for PwC during the February certification hearing.

“We are pleased with the court's order to deny even preliminary certification. The plaintiff's claims are simply false. PwC devotes enormous resources to recruiting a diverse workforce that includes people of all ages and experience levels,” Nicklin said in a statement. “PwC is fortunate to be a sought-after employer, and hires fewer than 5% of those who apply. PwC's hiring practices are merit-based and have nothing to do with age.”

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.

In the motion opposing class certification, PwC's lawyers argued the plaintiffs did not prove there was any decision, policy or plan that justified certifying the class.

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.

Outten & Golden attorney Jahan Sagafi in San Francisco said he was pleased Tigar believed the case showed his clients were victims of a uniform “decision, policy or plan” to support conditional certification.

“The court seems to have found it significant that older applicants face much greater hurdles in getting hired than younger applicants,” Sagafi said in an email. “We look forward to continuing to find a remedy for this alleged discrimination.”

Tigar said the plaintiffs have 30 days to file any amended motion for class certification “to cure the deficiencies identified in this order.”

Tigar's ruling is posted below:

Read more:

➤➤ 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.