Age Discrimination Claims - The Basics

By: Roger Braddock

Age discrimination is one of the fastest-growing areas of employment law. In 1999, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) received 14,141 age discrimination complaints.

By 2003, that number had risen to 19,124, though it had fallen from a peak of 19,921 in 2002.

Age discrimination complaints tend to track economic conditions and job cuts. When companies lay off workers, some complaints are valid, others are not. The overall rise also reflects more older workers in the workforce and stricter enforcement of age laws.

[removed - redundant with #3]

• ADEA Federal law
• Proving age discrimination
• [removed - duplicate heading]

ADEA federal law

Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating based on age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers 40 and older in hiring, firing, and other employment decisions. Minnesota has a separate state law with no specific age threshold.

The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees. It covers workers 40 and older. Being 39 offers no protection under federal law. The law also does not apply to companies with fewer than 20 employees.

Victims of age discrimination can recover lost income, damages for emotional distress, and attorney's fees. Judges can double the award under federal law or triple it under state law.

Proving age discrimination

Age discrimination cases are difficult to prove. You must show that age was the reason for the adverse action.

Adverse actions include termination, denial of promotion, smaller raises, reduced cost-of-living adjustments, or other negative treatment tied to age. This can extend to client assignments or lead distribution.

Direct evidence is strongest. An employer saying "you're too old" or "we want someone younger" is clear proof. Such statements are rare and almost never public.

Sometimes discrimination gets attributed to someone else: "The client wants a fresher face" or "We need someone who connects with the younger market."

Most cases rely on circumstantial evidence instead of direct proof.

Replacing an older employee with a younger one is not automatically age discrimination. Nor is replacing someone with a high salary with a lower-paid younger worker necessarily illegal. An employer is liable only if you can prove age was the real reason for the decision.

Why age discrimination is hard to prove

In small firms, age discrimination is hard to prove without concrete evidence that the employer acted because of age. Most employers won't admit such intent. Firing one or two older workers doesn't prove age discrimination.

Most successful claims rely on circumstantial evidence showing a pattern. For example: a 5,000-person company with no one over 45, or mass terminations of workers over 50 replaced by much younger staff, or a consistent pattern of older workers earning less and receiving smaller raises.

Age discrimination doesn't always mean being fired. Some companies trying to "get younger" deliberately make conditions difficult for older workers, hoping they'll quit, so they can replace them with younger hires.

Building an age discrimination case requires substantial time, research, and effort.

Minor differences in treatment usually won't hold up. For example, if workers under 55 received a 5.2% raise and workers over 55 received 5.0%, that gap is too small to prove discrimination. Any two age groups will show some statistical variation.

Age discrimination law doesn't require equal treatment. It requires that employers not make decisions based on age.