This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D adopted a pay plan granting raises to all its employees. The stated purpose of the plan was to 'attract and retain qualified people, provide incentive for performance, maintain competitiveness with other public sector agencies and ensure equitable compensation to all employees regardless of age, sex, race and/or disability.' A revision of the plan was adopted to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to the regional average. Those who had less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises when compared to their former pay than those with more seniority. Some officers over the age of 40 had less than five years of service, and most of the older officers had more. Ps are a group of older officers who filed suit under the ADEA claiming that D deliberately discriminated against them because of their age (the 'disparate-treatment' claim) and that they were 'adversely affected' by the plan because of their age (the 'disparate-impact' claim). The District Court granted summary judgment to Ds on both claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the disparate impact claim. The majority concluded that disparate-impact claims are categorically unavailable under the ADEA. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.