Lesson 19 Reading

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination against employees >40 years.
Older workers face longer unemployment periods than younger counterparts.
Age discrimination complaints: approx. 21.1% of all EEOC charges.
ADEA poses significant liability risk for employers.

The ADEA applies to employers with 20+ employees.
It prohibits preferential treatment towards younger employees even among employees aged 40+.
- Example: Hiring a 45-year-old over a 65-year-old based solely on age is discriminatory.
Age discrimination claims can arise from actions taken by those aged over 40 against same-age peers.
Majority of federal circuits state <10 years in age difference is insufficient for a prima facie case.
Protects against discrimination in hiring, discharge, promotion, and employment conditions.
Similar litigation approach to Title VII, albeit with key distinctions:
- ADEA does not prevent favoring older workers over younger ones (no reverse discrimination claims under ADEA).
- Example case: General Land Dynamics, Inc. v. Cline clarifies these distinctions.

Employers may limit promotions to current workforce employees or favor incumbents.
Employees >40 cannot be denied promotion solely based on age.
Discrimination claims do not arise merely from better treatment of younger employees in demotion scenarios.

Requires proof of a mixed motive in employment decisions.
Plaintiff bears the burden to prove employer would not have acted but for age (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.).
Requires use of the McDonnell-Douglas framework to show proof through shifting presumptions.
Important Note: Age can be considered alongside other motives for adverse actions.

Employers can be liable for neutral practices adversely impacting employees >40 (Smith v. City of Jackson).
Employee need not demonstrate intent to discriminate; must prove adverse effects.
Courts conflict on whether subgroups within the protected class can make impact claims.
Example: Third Circuit allowed claims from >50 employees claiming preference over >40.
Seventh Circuit ruled ADEA doesn’t protect non-employees under disparate impact theory (Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation).

Stray remarks alone (like "old timer dinosaurs") are insufficient for discrimination claims.
Remarks must connect clearly to employment actions to establish animus.
- Example: Brown v. Packaging Corp. did not connect comments to promotion denial.
Contrast with Reeves v. Sanderson, where combined evidence of discrimination upheld jury verdict.
Courts consider treatment of older employees in similar situations (Earl v. Nielsen Media Research).

Prohibits mandatory retirement for employees aged 40+ with few exceptions for bona fide executives.
ADEA prohibits performance conditions tied to retirement age.
Eighth Circuit found an “age 55 cliff” plan in violation of ADEA.

Exemptions for high-level executives allowing mandatory retirement at age 65, for specific qualifications:
- Must hold a bona fide executive role for >2 years before retirement.
- Must receive a nonforfeitable retirement benefit ≥ $44,000 annually.

Early retirement plans must be purely voluntary, not coercive.
Example: Court ruled that voluntary packages do not violate ADEA if unrelated to age discriminations.
However, prior agreements violating ADEA to incentivize retirement can result in claims.

ADEA mandates equal job placement opportunities for older employees during RIFs.
The presence of older employees being replaced does not inherently establish discrimination.
- Example: Rulings show reliance on performance data isn’t discriminatory.
Specific comments suggesting age-reduction motives can establish prima facie but must connect to layoff decisions.

ADEA has specific exemptions, such as:
- Actions necessary to achieve public safety.
- Practices based on reasonable factors other than age.
Example: Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell found age restrictions contrary to BFOQ.