The plaintiffs were terminated as part of a reduction-in-force and sued, alleging disparate impact and disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The district court, per a magistrate judge designated by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 686(c), issued a 145-page Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have read the briefs on appeal and have consulted the applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the plaintiffs did not give adequate notice of their specific disparate-impact claim and did not make a prima facie case of disparate-impact age discrimination under the ADEA. The defendants established a sufficient reasonable-faetor-other-than-age defense and fulfilled their disclosure duties under ERISA.

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge in his comprehensive opinion.