A 2024 study by
AARP shows that 64% of workers over the age of 50 have reported experiencing or witnessing age discrimination in the workplace. The numbers are higher among Black (74%), Latino (62%), and Asian American (67%) workers. The
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) ( to ) is a federal law that provides certain employment protections to workers who are over the age of forty, who work for an employer who has twenty or more employees. For protected workers, the ADEA prohibits discrimination at all levels of employment, from recruitment and hiring, through the employment relationship, and through decisions for layoffs or termination of the employment relationship. An age limit may only be legally specified for protected workers in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "
bona fide occupational qualification [BFOQ] reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (see ). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie), when a job is physically demanding (police, firefighters, military service), or when public safety is a concern (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots, truck drivers, and bus drivers). Some states like
New York and
New Jersey, including
District of Columbia have laws that protect younger workers from reverse age discrimination, a practice not prohibited under the ADEA. In these jurisdictions, employers are legally prohibited from discriminating against workers 18 and older for their age unless a bona fide occupational qualification exists (i.e., employers may require bartenders to be at least 21 to comply with the
legal drinking age). In 1968, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared age restrictions on flight attendants' employment to be illegal sex discrimination under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In July 2024, the state of Colorado passed the "Job Application Fairness Act," which prohibits employers from requesting age-related information, such as date of birth or graduation date, during the early stages of the hiring process. Similar laws also exist in the states of California, Delaware, and Connecticut. In 2025,
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed its age requirements, which had required applicants to be at least 21 years old and no older than 37 to 40, depending on the job. It currently requires a minimum age of 18 for applicants.
Mandatory retirement Mandatory retirement due to age is generally unlawful in the United States, except in certain industries and occupations that are regulated by law, and are often part of the government (such as military service and federal police agencies, such as the
Federal Bureau of Investigation).
Minnesota has statutorily established mandatory retirement for all judges at age 70 (more precisely, at the end of the month a judge reaches that age). The
Minnesota Legislature has had the constitutional right to set judicial retirement ages since 1956, but did not do so until 1973, setting the age at 70. In 1978, President
Jimmy Carter signed a law banning employers from requiring most employees to retire because of age before age 70 and ending mandatory retirement for most federal employees. The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which became law in 1986, ended mandatory age-related retirement at age 70 for many jobs, not including the Minnesota judiciary; The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (Public Law 110-135) went into effect on December 13, 2007, raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots to 65 from the previous 60.
Air traffic controllers have a mandatory retirement age of 56, with exceptions up to age 61. Most air traffic controllers are hired before the age of 31 (the hiring cutoff age for those with experience is 36).
United States Foreign Service employees at the Department of State have a mandatory retirement age of 65 with very narrow exceptions. Federal law enforcement officers, national park rangers and firefighters have a mandatory retirement age of 57, or later if they have had less than 20 years of service. For
Florida Supreme Court justices, the Florida Constitution establishes mandatory retirement at age 70.
Michigan judges of all levels cannot run for election after passing the age of 70. In the
New Hampshire Constitution, Article 78 sets the retirement of all judges and sheriffs at age 70. The
New Jersey Supreme Court has established mandatory retirement at age 70. The
Maryland Constitution establishes a mandatory retirement age of 70 for Circuit and Appellate Court judges.
Oregon has a mandatory judicial retirement age of 75.
Minimum wage In 1986, the
Fair Labor Standards Act was amended to allow the
United States Secretary of Labor to provide special certificates to allow an employer to pay less than the minimum wage to individuals whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age, physical or mental deficiency, or injury. These employees must still be paid wages that are related to the individual's productivity and commensurate with those paid to similarly located and employed nonhandicapped workers.
Employment of minors In the United States, a person must generally be at least 14 years old to seek a job, and workers face additional restrictions on their work activities until they reach age 16. Additional age restrictions for workers vary by state. For example, many states require workers under 18 years of age to have
work permits and not fulfill occupations deemed hazardous.
Notable case law EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), is a Supreme Court of the United States case about forcible retirement of an employee of the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The court held the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any employee or potential employee between the ages of 40 and 70 on the basis of age, except "where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." In
Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell 472 US 400 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held it was lawful to require airline pilots to retire at 60, because the Federal Aviation Authority forbid using pilots over 60 in aviation. But the Court held that refusing to employ flight engineers over that age was unjustified as there were no such FAA requirements. (Note that The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (Public Law 110-135) went into effect on December 13, 2007, raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots to 65 from the previous 60.)
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) was a U.S. Supreme Court case. It concerned a provision in the
Missouri state constitution that required state judges to retire at the age of 70, and the court was asked to consider whether it conflicted with the 1967 federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the
Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provision was upheld, with the case being one of several Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that "ambiguous language will not be interpreted to intrude on areas of traditional state authority or important state governmental functions".
DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 (2nd Cir. 1993) was an employment discrimination case brought under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 law, and if it were that this case against it was in violation of the
Free Exercise Clause and the
Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize the administrative remedies available. The court noted that other anti-discrimination statutes were held to be applicable to religious organizations, with the exception of statutes that prohibited discrimination based on religious belief. Since statutes prohibiting discrimination by race, gender and national origin were already found applicable to religious organizations, it was logical (and a reasonable interpretation of the legislative history) to extend the prohibition against age discrimination to religious organizations as well. The decision of the district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Geary v. Visitation of Blessed Virgin Mary School, 7
F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1993), was a court case in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which considered whether a religious school in
Darby, Pennsylvania could be sued for age discrimination. The court determined that the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 can only apply to an employment action that was taken based on a claim of religious doctrine or tenet if the plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the doctrine or tenet and only asks whether the doctrine or tenet actually motivated the challenged employment action. The court did, however, find that an issue of material fact existed as to whether or not the cancellation of insurance when the plaintiff's
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint was filed was retaliatory in nature. The
summary judgment of the district court in favor of the school and against the plaintiff was vacated and the case remanded for further fact-finding on this specific issue.
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins 507 U.S. 604 (1993) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a
disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee's protected trait had a determinative influence on the employer's decisionmaking. This case concerned how Hazen Paper fired Biggins, 62, a few weeks before his service would have reached the required number of years for his pension to vest. Biggins sued Hazen Paper alleging a violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions. Mr. Spink was denied full benefits from
Lockheed Corporation after being rehired in 1988. He claimed that an amendment of the plan, to exclude people over 61, violated § 406(a)(1)(D) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction that transfers plan assets to, or involves the use of plan assets for the benefit of, a party in interest. But Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that employers could amend plans. They were not bound by fiduciary duties while acting as sponsors. In
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that state employees cannot sue states for monetary damages under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 in federal court. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may still enforce the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 against states, and state employees may still sue state officials for
declaratory and
injunctive relief. In
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that "a plaintiff’s prima facie case of age discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification for its action was false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated," and that the plaintiff need not always introduce additional and independent evidence of discrimination. The Court held that if a reasonable jury determines that an employer's explanation for an employee being dismissed was an excuse for age discrimination, then the employer is liable to the former employee under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Smith v. City of Jackson,
544 U.S. 228 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2005. It concerned the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the
disparate impact theory. The Court held that although the theory of disparate impact set forth in
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
401 U.S. 424 (1971) is also applicable under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is narrower as it permits “otherwise prohibited” actions “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.”
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The Court accepted the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s test for determining whether a filing constituted a charge as set forth in its
amicus curiae brief as well as internal directives, and decided: “In addition to the information required by the regulations,
i.e., an allegation and the name of the charged party, if a filing is to be deemed a charge it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee’s rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee.” The Court then decided that the documents filed in this case met these requirements. In
Gomez-Perez v. Potter (2008), the United States Supreme Court allowed federal workers who experience retaliation as a result of reporting age discrimination under the law to sue for damages.
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled Kentucky's retirement system does not amount to age discrimination under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when granting pensions to disabled persons who had not yet reached the permitted retirement age of 55. The United States Supreme Court, in
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab, 554 U.S. 84 (2008), held that the employer, not the employee, bears the burden of proving that a layoff or other action that hurts older workers more than others was based not on age but on some other “reasonable factor.”
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court. In 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion on
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court ruled that private-sector plaintiffs must prove that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action they are suing over. However, the Supreme Court's opinion did not explicitly mention public-sector workers. A later opinion,
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013) applied the same 'but for' standard to
retaliation claims. In September 2016, California passed state bill AB-1687, an anti-ageism law taking effect on 1 January 2017, requiring "commercial online entertainment employment" services that allow paid subscribers to submit information and resumes (such as
IMDbPro), to honor requests to have their ages and birthdays removed. The bill was supported by
SAG-AFTRA's former and current presidents
Ken Howard and
Gabrielle Carteris, who felt that the law would help to reduce ageism in the entertainment industry. On 23 February 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria issued a stay on the bill pending a further trial, claiming that it was "difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the
First Amendment" because it inhibited the public consumption of factual information. In February 2018, Girdhari ruled that the law was unconstitutional, arguing that the state of California "[had] not shown that partially eliminating one source of age-related information will appreciably diminish the amount of age discrimination occurring in the entertainment industry." The ruling was criticized by SAG-AFTRA, alleging that the court "incorrectly concluded there were no material disputed factual issues, while precluding the parties from acquiring additional evidence or permitting the case to go to trial". The ruling was eventually appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in 2020.
Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a
motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing
but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the
ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012) which created the ministerial exception based on the
Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The Supreme Court case
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, along with the consolidated
St. James School v. Biel (Docket 19-348), both arose from rulings in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under
Hosanna-Tabor. One of those rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was the ruling in
Morrissey-Berru v. Our Lady of Guadalupe School, in 2019, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed a Catholic elementary school teacher's age discrimination suit to move forward. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of
Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision called
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of
Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination. == Federally funded programs ==