Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

Employers are generally familiar with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination against employees age 40 and older on the basis of age. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that plaintiffs bringing ADEA claims must prove that age was the “but for” cause

Reorganization, reduction in force (“RIF”), merger of departments – these are only a few reasons which employers give when firing an employee – and which is frequently alleged to be — and found to be a pretext in violation of Title VII, the ADEA or other anti-discrimination laws.

And also setting a performance bar too

We have compiled a long list of words or terms used by employers to describe older employees — which the employees have later used in court as direct evidence of age discrimination under the ADEA.

Add another word to the list, which includes “ancient,” “old school,” “set in his ways,” “not a proper fit for

The BBC has just reported that numerous age discriminatory ads appear on the UK government’s Universal Jobmatch website, which is used by millions seeking jobs.

“Recent graduates” are sought in ads by hundreds of employers, such as “My client is recruiting a recent graduate to join their extremely busy team. You should be looking for

Someone failed to advise a NY legal staffing company about a little thing known as the ADEA – the Age Discrimination In Employment Act.

Apparently it “rejected a 70-year-old attorney when it discovered her age and told her it would never hire her after she questioned if the rejection was because of her age.”  This,

The Supreme Court in a 2009 decision called Gross changed the well-settled burden of proof used in so-called “mixed motive” cases, by which if an employee showed that discrimination was a “motivating factor” in an adverse employment determination, the employer than had the burden to show that it would have made the same adverse employment

Age discrimination has explicitly been on the top of the EEOC’s agenda for almost a year, what with an aging workforce and a growing number of age charges filed. Two recent cases are instructive as to the nature of direct evidence of age discrimination and the ways that some employers think that they are gaming