Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (PGW) manufactures automotive glass in Harmarville, Pennsylvania. In 2008, the automobile industry began to falter. PGW engaged in several reductions in force (RIFs) to offset deteriorating sales. The RIF of relevance to this case occurred on March 31, 2009, terminating the employment of approximately 100 salaried employees in over 40 locations or divisions. Individual unit directors had broad discretion in selecting whom to terminate. Seven plaintiffs worked in PGW’s Manufacturing Technology division. They were terminated as part of the March 2009 RIF by their supervisor, Gary Cannon. Each was over 50 years old at the time. Plaintiffs sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging, among other things, disparate impact discrimination based on age. The District Court granted summary judgment for PGW on the basis that a disparate impact claim by plaintiffs 50-and-older is not cognizable under the ADEA. The ruling was appealed. ADEA cases usually evaluate the effect of a facially neutral policy on all employees who are at least 40 years old. In this case, plaintiffs claim they have identified a policy that disproportionately impacted a subgroup of that population:

employees older than 50.Do you believe that the appellate court should recognize the claim of disparate impact against the subgroup?

 How do you think the appellate court ruled and why?