Employer had a particular division within its company in which employees were paid on the basis of production. In this particular situation, workers aged $1839$ routinely produced more and therefore earned more than workers aged $40$ and above. Assume for purposes of this question only that the employees aged $40$ and over could bring a lawsuit alleging disparate impact rather than disparate treatment, that is$,$ they are allowed to argue that they have been disparately impacted even though they are not guaranteed to win. What would the result be$?($See Case $9-3$ Smith v$.$ City of Jackson Mississippi.$)$

Group of answer choices

a$.$The employees would lose because the disparate impact is based on a reasonable factor other than age.

b$.$The employees would win because they would be able to show that there was a correlation between their age and the reduction of their ability to produce.