Mixed claims sounding in both gender and age are cognizable under Title VII.
Clam sufficiently states the age and gender claim by reciting the gender of the plaintiffs and that they are older than 40.
~96% chance of firings being non-random across age and gender suffices to create a plausible inference of discrimination.
Even given the statistical possibility of discrimination, no facts raising an inference of discrimination on the basis of gender were pleaded, so the non-random employment actions are susceptible of other explanations.
Given statistical analysis of terminations and the demographics of the new employees hired, the suit states a claim for disparate impact under the ADEA.
Median ages of terminated and new employees suffice to state a claim for disparate treatment under the ADEA, but employer met the burden of producing a nondiscriminatory basis. Sufficient issue for trial on whether these post-hoc rationales were pretextual.