During a reduction in force implemented over a two-year period, an employer terminated 13.7 percent of its employees aged 55 and above, compared to 5.4 percent of employees under age 55. Employees over age 55 comprised 14.7 percent of the workforce before the RIF and 13.6 percent afterward. The employer’s stated criteria for selecting employees in the RIF included salary level and eligibility for retirement. Other evidence included a videotape in which the company CEO stated that employees over 50 662 Part 6: Terminating Employment “have trouble changing,” a memo soliciting nominations for “high potential/high achiever candidates” that specified candidates must “have NOT reached their 40th birthday,” and a number of other statements by top managers regarding the need to retain “young people” to stay competitive. A group of older employees terminated during the RIF sued. What should the court decide? Why?