It’s a story that many older job seekers find familiar. An employer seeking fresh faces and youthful vitality won’t give the time of day to applicants who are not “recent college graduates.” PricewaterhouseCoopers, a worldwide accounting, tax services and consulting firm is facing a class action lawsuit claiming older job candidates didn’t stand much of a chance against their younger competition.

Last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers failed in its efforts to have the case dismissed because it relies on disparate impact claims under federal age discrimination law, reports Law360. A disparate impact claim is one where a plaintiff tries to prove discrimination through statistics. Due to the high number of younger people hired, versus the high number of older workers rejected, this couldn’t have happened randomly. It’s a complex way to show age discrimination without having to prove an intent by management to discriminate.

A U.S. District Judge in California, Hon. John Tigar, ruled the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) allows job applicants to bring disparate impact discrimination claims, given past Supreme Court decisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of the law and the act’s legislative history.

The defendant argued the ADEA only mentions employees, not job applicants, so it doesn’t apply in this case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and the judge took the position the law includes the term “any individual,” which could mean people who aren’t current employees.

The lawsuit was filed by a certified public accountant, Steve Rabin, who claims the firm has a “stunningly low” number of older workers in entry-level and lower- to mid-level positions. He states these jobs are filled by campus recruiters so job applicants have to be affiliated with a college or university. These openings aren’t posted on the firm’s website and doesn’t offer job seekers not connected to a university a way to apply.

Just a month ago, Judge Tigar entertained oral argument on a motion to conditionally certify a class action to go forward on age discrimination claims.  Judge Tigar did not signal his likely decision, but did stated that if he denies class status to the putative plaintiffs across the country, those plaintiffs are likely to have their claims preserved individually.

“If that happens, it would be without prejudice,” he said.

A plaintiff’s expert has calculated that younger candidates have a 538 per cent greater chance of being hired by PwC than candidates over age 40

The Company argues that such evidence does not create any inference that it is guilty of age discrimination.

The class of plaintiffs could include 14,000 rejected job applicants. PricewaterhouseCoopers has more than 46,000 U.S. employees, according to Reuters. The average age of a firm employee in 2011 was 27 and two-thirds of its workers were in their 20’s or early 30’s. The median age for U.S. accountants and auditors is 43, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. When Rabin applied for a job at the defendant he was 53.

The firm has publicized its desire for a young workforce. Though that may be good for attracting younger job candidates, it could be bad when defending an age discrimination case. CNNMoney reported in 2015 that PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that by 2016 a “jaw-dropping” 80% of its global workforce will be millennial (considered those born between 1982 and 2004). Those in that age group make up about 30% of the US population.

When discussing how it attracts more millennial job candidates, “We’ve all smartened up,” said Anne Donovan a managing director at the firm and its talent transformation leader. Maybe a not so smart way to get younger employees is to discriminate against older job candidates and not hire them. The resolution of this case may show if PricewaterhouseCoopers went beyond the law in its drive to attain millennials in its workforce.

If you have a crisis or concern about age discrimination in your workplace or believe you’ve been denied a job opportunity due to your age, contact the employment attorneys for workers at Hanan M. Isaacs, P.C., at 609-683-7400, or contact us online to set up a near-term reduced fee initial consultation at our Central Jersey location in Kingston.  We will listen to your facts, explain the law, and recommend your best pathways to monetary and social justice.  Call today. You will be glad you did.