light of City of Jackson, it is clear that Xerox is no longer good law insofar as it holds that the “business necessity” test governs ADEA disparate-impact claims. B. It remains to apply the “reasonableness” test to plaintiffs’ disparate-impact claims, which survived application of the “business necessity” test in Meacham. First, we consider who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to the “reasonableness” of the employer’s proffered business justification under the ADEA disparate-impact framework. The best reading of the text of the ADEA — in light of CHy of Jackson and Wards Cove— is that the plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the factfinder that the employer’s justification is unreasonable. See Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1200 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The following considerations lead us to that
holding that once the employee makes its prima facie showing the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that legitimate reasons supported the termination holding that the court may presume it has jurisdiction over a case once the plaintiffs initial burden of establishing jurisdiction has been satisfied holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination holding that under city of jackson once employer has satisfied burden of producing evidence of legitimate business justification to prevail employee must ultimately persuade the factfinder that the employers asserted basis for the neutral policy is unreasonable holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee