Articles about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and other issues relating to age discrimination in the workplace.

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

As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s  FY 2019 report reflects 21.4% of all employment charges handled in 2019 were for age discrimination; 41.4% of all charges allege retaliation. Recently, seven former directors of a grocery store chain filed suit alleging age discrimination and retaliation arising from alleged transfer to failing

Based on a set of somewhat unusual facts, a federal district court in Ohio ruled that an employer that refused to rehire a recently retired individual to his former position will need to argue at a jury trial that its decision was not based on age.  In Rose v. City

“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.

“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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit non-employees to bring claims under a disparate impact theory, the Seventh Circuit has ruled. Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019). Accordingly, in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, job applicants will not be able to challenge hiring decisions that are neutral, but which disproportionately exclude job applicants over 40.

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.

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).

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).

Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions?

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.

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.

Executive Summary: On July 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Carson v. Lake County, Indiana affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer on the plaintiffs’ Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims, finding that they were not terminated because of their age, but because the employer needed to preserve supplemental insurance coverage for retirees and avoid incurring additional costs.

A federal court in Michigan dismissed the age discrimination claim of a licensed medical marijuana caregiver who was terminated in connection with an investigation into drug activity at work. Henry v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., LLC, No. 15-cv-10755 (E.D. Mich. April 18, 2017).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently became the first appellate court to find that so-called “subgroup” disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination against individuals age 40 and older.