May an employee assert a hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)? In Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit responded affirmatively, and, in so doing, joined a number of its sister circuits that had previously
Articles about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and other issues relating to age discrimination in the workplace.
Employer Paying Six Figure Settlement Based on EEOC Claims that AI Software Discriminated Against Older Applicants
Bloomberg Law reported earlier today that the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) reached a settlement for $365,000 with iTutorGroup, Inc. after the federal agency filed a complaint against the employer alleging that its artificial intelligence (“AI”) software automatically rejected female tutor applicants over 55 and male tutor applicants over 60.
According to the complaint, the age exclusion was discovered when a rejected applicant submitted a new identical application with a more recent birth date. The EEOC claimed over two hundred applicants were adversely affected.
Although this is not a California complaint/settlement, this is the first AI case settlement we are aware of. The case and settlement illustrate that the EEOC is willing to aggressively prosecute cases in the AI area as part of its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative. This settlement should not be ignored by the employer community and it further emphasizes the need for California employers who use artificial intelligence for recruiting/screening to:
Fifth Circuit Rules Age-Related Comments Must Be Specific to Defeat Summary Judgment
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling concerning the discharge of Michael Harris from his position with the City of Schertz as the city marshal. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit gave a bit more clarity on the situations in which comments made by an employer or
Sixth Circuit: Employee-Driven Talk About Retirement Does Not Prove Employer’s Discriminatory Pretext
Talking to an employee about her retirement plans when considering the termination of her employment as discipline for a policy violation is not per se age discrimination, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Sixth Circuit Rejects EEOC’s Push to Broaden the Causation Standard in Age Discrimination Lawsuits
In Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., the Sixth Circuit recently held that ageist comments attributed to a bank’s CEO were insufficient evidence to support an employee’s claim that she was fired because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Two of the three statements in question related to another employee in her eighties, and the third was a statement that the bank should hire younger tellers.
EEOC: Non-U.S. Citizen Employees Working Abroad May Be Excluded from OWBPA Disclosures
For years, U.S. employers with international operations have struggled to understand their obligations under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) when implementing reductions-in-force and group layoffs.
EEOC Issues Guidance on Inclusion of International Employees on OWBPA Disclosures
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued long-awaited and much-needed clarification on whether non-U.S. citizen employees working for a U.S. employer outside the United States must be included in the disclosure required for compliance with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). The EEOC
Ninth Circuit Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claims in Trio of ADA Disability Access Cases
In a big win for Starbucks and all other restauranteurs, retailers, and places of public accommodation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in three related cases (Johnson v. Starbuck Corp., Lindsay v. Starbucks Corp., and Kong v. Starbucks Corp.) that accessible sales and service counters are
Can Cross-Generational Viral Internet Phrases in the Workplace Create Unlawful Age Discrimination?
“OK Boomer” is having a moment on the internet, appearing often in viral jokes and memes. It is widely considered an all-purpose retort by the younger generations of Millennials and Gen Z’ers to dismiss thoughts and ideas they view as too old-fashioned. Some even use “OK Boomer” to discount opinions stereotypically attributed to the Baby Boomer generation.
Seventh Circuit Rules Age Bias Protections Don’t Extend to Prospective Employees For Disparate Impact Claims
A recent federal court decision opened the door for employers to recruit and hire candidates who are either recent graduates or have limited work experience without risking liability for certain claims of age discrimination.
Seventh Circuit Limits Job Applicants’ Age Discrimination Claims
Executive Summary: A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, recently ruled 8-4 that job applicants may not bring claims for unintentional age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In rejecting plaintiff Dale Kleber’s claim, the court chiefly relied on the text of the statute, but also supported its position by examining the overall structure of the ADEA. See Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019).
Supreme Court: Age Discrimination in Employment Act Applies to All State, Local Government Employers
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to state and local government employers, regardless of their size, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous (8-0) seven-page decision. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587 (Nov. 6, 2018).
Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case
Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions?
Seventh Circuit Opines on “Reasonable Factor Other Than Age” Defense to ADEA Claim Stemming from Benefit Plan Elimination
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed whether a company’s liquidation plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because it caused a disparate impact on older workers. O’Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. No. 17-2956 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2018). The Seventh Circuit held that although the liquidation plan did statistically disfavor older workers, it did not violate the ADEA because the liquidation plan was designed to promote legitimate business purposes, namely cost-cutting measures and voluntary retirement incentives.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Looking Back at the Last Fifty Years
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),[1] which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Congress created the legislation in an effort to promote the employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age and to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment.[2] During the past fifty years, the ADEA has been amended several times, including in 1978, 1986, 1990 and 1996,[3] thereby expanding the scope of the law and the protection afforded older workers. While the overall effect of the amendments has been to expand the law, court decisions have tightened the requirements for proving a violation, and, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), outdated assumptions about age and work persist as stereotypes and barriers to the employment of older workers.[4] This article looks back at some of the significant changes to the ADEA and legal decisions interpreting the law since its enactment.