Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967) prohibits employment discrimination against workers age 40 and older — covering hiring, firing, pay, promotions, layoffs, and all other terms of employment. The EEOC has historically received roughly 13,000–17,000 age discrimination charges annually (FY2023: 16,016 ADEA charges out of 81,055 total), making it consistently one of the most commonly filed discrimination claims.<!-- FACTCHECK 2026-05-10: EEOC FY2024 reported 88,531 total charges; ADEA-specific count not yet broken out in published EEOC enforcement statistics as of May 2026 — historic share has been ~17-21% of total filings. — wiki-factcheck --> ADEA protections matter most in layoffs and "restructurings," where older workers are disproportionately targeted despite the legal prohibition, and in hiring, where age is sometimes used as a proxy for cost (senior workers earn more) or assumed technological adaptability. The law is enforced by the EEOC, but proving intent is harder than under Title VII race and sex discrimination — plaintiffs must show age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse action under Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009), a higher bar than the mixed-motive standard available in other discrimination cases.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) — Prohibition (unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of age — see also Equal Pay & Pregnancy Discrimination for related employment protections)
• 29 U.S.C. § 623(b) — Employment agencies (unlawful to refuse to refer for employment because of age)
• 29 U.S.C. § 623(c) — Labor organizations (unlawful to exclude or expel because of age)
• 29 U.S.C. § 623(f) — Exceptions (bona fide occupational qualification — BFOQ; reasonable factors other than age — RFOA; bona fide seniority systems; bona fide employee benefit plans; discharge for good cause)
• 29 U.S.C. § 626 — Recordkeeping, investigation, enforcement (EEOC investigates and attempts conciliation; right to file civil action; ADEA administrative claim must be filed within 180 days or 300 days depending on state; jury trial available for liquidated damages)
• 29 U.S.C. § 631 — Age limits (protections apply to individuals who are at least 40 years of age; no upper limit)
• 29 U.S.C. § 630 — Definitions (employer: 20+ employees; includes state and local governments under 1974 amendments)

How It Works

The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against workers age 40 and older — protecting approximately 60+ million Americans from being fired, denied promotion, refused hiring, or otherwise disadvantaged in the workplace because of their age.

The ADEA's prohibitions cover the full employment lifecycle for workers 40 and older: hiring (including "overqualified" rejections that often function as proxies for age), promotion, assignment, training, harassment, layoff, and retaliation. Job advertisements cannot specify age preferences or use language like "seeking recent college graduates" when the intent is to screen out older applicants.

Two Supreme Court decisions define the litigation landscape. Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009) held that ADEA plaintiffs must prove age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action — a stricter standard than the "motivating factor" test available in Title VII race and sex discrimination cases. This higher bar makes age discrimination claims harder to win than comparable civil rights claims. Smith v. City of Jackson (2005) recognized disparate impact claims under the ADEA — challenging facially neutral policies that disproportionately affect older workers — but with a broader employer defense: policies based on a "reasonable factor other than age" (RFOA) defeat such claims, a lower standard than Title VII's business necessity defense.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) governs one of the most consequential ADEA issues in practice: waivers of age discrimination claims in severance agreements. An OWBPA-compliant waiver must be written in plain language; specifically refer to ADEA rights; provide consideration beyond what the employee is already entitled to; advise the employee in writing to consult an attorney; give the employee 21 days to consider (45 days in group layoffs); and allow 7 days to revoke after signing. Defects in any of these requirements make the waiver unenforceable — a common issue in reduction-in-force situations where employers use form agreements. The ADEA generally prohibits mandatory retirement by age, with narrow exceptions for bona fide executives or high policymakers (age 65+ with annual retirement benefits exceeding $44,000) and state/local public safety officers under federally approved mandatory retirement ages.

How It Affects You

State Variations

Implementing Regulations

• 29 CFR Part 1625 — Age Discrimination in Employment Act: the EEOC's implementing interpretations and regulations defining what the ADEA prohibits and how key provisions operate:

  • § 1625.2 — Core prohibition: the ADEA prohibits discrimination against individuals 40 years old or older in any aspect of employment — hiring, firing, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; the prohibition applies unless a statutory exemption (bona fide occupational qualification, bona fide seniority system, bona fide employee benefit plan, or the executive exemption) applies
  • § 1625.10 — Employee benefit plans (§ 4(f)(2) exemption): employers may observe the terms of bona fide employee benefit plans that reduce benefits for older workers only to the extent the cost of providing those benefits to older workers equals the cost of providing benefits to younger workers (the "equal cost or equal benefit" principle); for example, employer-provided disability insurance or life insurance that declines with age may be permissible if the premium cost to the employer is the same per employee at all ages; this "cost justification" defense does not apply to retirement or pension benefits
  • § 1625.12 — Executive/high policymaker exception: employers may require retirement at age 65 for bona fide executives or high policymakers who have been in that role for the 2 years immediately preceding retirement and are entitled to a nonforfeitable benefit of at least $44,000 per year from the employer's retirement program; this narrow exception reflects Congress's decision that senior executives may have mandatory retirement while protecting all other workers from age-based forced retirement
  • § 1625.22 — OWBPA waiver requirements: the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 amended the ADEA to impose specific requirements that must be met for a waiver of ADEA rights (typically in a severance agreement) to be "knowing and voluntary" and enforceable: the waiver must (1) be in writing, drafted in a manner calculated to be understood by the individual; (2) specifically refer to ADEA rights; (3) not waive rights or claims arising after the waiver's execution date; (4) be given in exchange for consideration in addition to anything the employee is already entitled to; (5) advise the employee in writing to consult an attorney before signing; (6) provide at least 21 days to consider the offer (45 days if related to group termination programs); and (7) be revocable for 7 days after signing; employers who fail to meet these requirements cannot enforce the waiver — courts have held that non-compliant ADEA waivers are wholly unenforceable, not merely voidable
  • § 1625.21 — Apprenticeship programs: the ADEA applies to all apprenticeship programs; admission criteria that screen out older applicants must be justified as bona fide occupational qualifications or otherwise not age-based; this provision addresses the historical practice of imposing age caps on apprenticeship program entry (e.g., "applicants must be under 35 to apply") — such caps are presumptively unlawful unless an employer can demonstrate age is a BFOQ

  The OWBPA waiver provisions at § 1625.22 are among the most actively litigated ADEA regulatory provisions: employers routinely include ADEA waivers in separation and severance agreements; employees who later want to sue must demonstrate the waiver failed to meet the requirements. EEOC interpretive guidance at § 1625.22 is treated by courts as authoritative on what "knowing and voluntary" means for waiver validity.

• 29 CFR Part 1626 — Procedures for ADEA Cases (22 sections — the EEOC's operational rulebook for the full lifecycle of an age discrimination charge, from initial filing through right-to-sue letter or Commission lawsuit). Key provisions:

  • § 1626.5 — Where to file: charges may be submitted through EEOC's digital systems, in person, by phone, fax, or mail to any EEOC office; the EEOC also accepts charges through many state and local fair employment practices agencies under work-sharing agreements
  • § 1626.6 — Form of charge: must be in writing and name the respondent; telephone reports are reduced to writing by EEOC staff; unlike some civil litigation, there is no required use of a specific form — a letter describing the discrimination, the parties, and the dates can constitute a valid charge if it meets the basic requirements
  • § 1626.7 — Timeliness: no civil suit may be commenced by an individual until 60 days after a charge has been filed; charges must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act in states without a state age-discrimination agency, or within 300 days in "deferral states" that have a qualifying state agency (most states); the 300-day period is the relevant deadline in most U.S. workplaces; the clock starts from the discrete discriminatory act, not from when the employee learns about it
  • § 1626.9 — State agency referral: in deferral states, the EEOC defers to the state agency for the first 60 days before exercising federal jurisdiction; this automatic deferral period is why the first 60 days of the 300-day window belong to the state process — a practical timing matter for employees deciding when and how to file
  • § 1626.11 — Notice to respondent: upon receipt of a charge, EEOC promptly notifies the respondent that a charge has been filed; this notification does not include the full charge at that point, but it does put the employer on notice of the EEOC's investigation and triggers the employer's preservation obligation for relevant records
  • § 1626.12 — Conciliation: after investigation, if EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, it must attempt to eliminate the alleged unlawful practice by informal conciliation, conference, and persuasion before initiating litigation; conciliation is confidential — neither party may use conciliation statements in subsequent proceedings
  • § 1626.17 — Notice of dismissal or right-to-sue: if the charge is dismissed (no reasonable cause) or EEOC terminates its proceedings without resolution, the Commission issues a "Notice of Dismissal or Termination" that functions as the charging party's right-to-sue letter; the charging party then has 90 days to file a federal civil action (the 90-day window begins from receipt of the notice, not the date it was mailed)
  • § 1626.18 — Private lawsuit: an aggrieved person may file a civil action in federal or state court any time after 60 days have elapsed since the charge was filed, even if the EEOC's investigation is still ongoing — the ADEA does not require waiting for a right-to-sue letter (unlike Title VII, where a right-to-sue letter is a prerequisite); this means ADEA plaintiffs can file in court relatively quickly if they choose not to wait for the EEOC process
  • § 1626.19 — Commission enforcement: the EEOC may file its own civil action against a respondent regardless of whether a charge was filed and regardless of whether it issued a right-to-sue letter to any charging party; the Commission's independent enforcement authority is not exhausted or extinguished by private litigation

  The ADEA's charge-filing process differs from Title VII in two procedurally important ways: (1) ADEA charges can be filed without exhausting administrative remedies before going to court (as long as 60 days have elapsed), whereas Title VII requires a right-to-sue letter; and (2) the ADEA incorporates FLSA enforcement mechanisms — including the EEOC's ability to file suit independently and seek liquidated damages for willful violations as double back pay. In practice, the EEOC resolves the large majority of ADEA charges through dismissal, withdrawal, or conciliation settlement without litigation; only a small fraction result in EEOC-filed suits or right-to-sue letters leading to private court action.

• 29 CFR Part 35 — DOL age discrimination rules:

  • Purpose and scope (nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from DOL)
  • Rules against age discrimination (prohibits exclusion from participation, denial of benefits, or discrimination on the basis of age)
  • Normal operation and statutory objective exceptions (actions that reasonably take age into account as necessary to the normal operation of a program or to achieve a statutory objective)

• 34 CFR Part 110 — Department of Education: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age (27 sections — ED's implementing rules for the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 as applied to programs and activities receiving ED financial assistance, covering Title I school funding, Pell Grants, student loans, IDEA special education grants, vocational education, and all other ED-funded programs):

  • § 110.1 — Purpose: Part 110 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in all programs or activities receiving financial assistance from ED; unlike the ADEA (which covers employment), Part 110 focuses on denial of services, benefits, or participation in ED-funded programs — a student cannot be excluded from a federally funded tutoring program because of age; an adult education program cannot refuse enrollment to someone over 65; an ED-funded disability program cannot exclude participants above a certain age
  • § 110.10 — General rule: no person in the United States may, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving ED assistance; the rule applies to the full range of program activities — admission, participation, access to services, the nature of services offered, and evaluation criteria
  • § 110.11 / 110.12 — Exceptions: the rule does not prohibit distinctions based on age that are necessary to the "normal operation" of a program (e.g., kindergarten programs limited to 5-year-olds are required by the program's normal operation, not by age discrimination) or that achieve a "statutory objective" (e.g., age-targeted benefits like programs for senior citizens required by statute); age distinctions based on "reasonable factors other than age" are also permitted — §§ 110.12–110.13
  • § 110.16 — Special benefits for children and the elderly: if a recipient provides special benefits to the elderly or to children (such as reduced-price school meals or senior center services), the use of age distinctions is presumed not to violate the Act — Congress specifically endorsed targeted programs for these populations
  • § 110.30 — Compliance review: ED may initiate compliance reviews of recipients on its own motion; recipients must provide access to records, facilities, and information to enable ED to determine compliance
  • § 110.34 — Voluntary compliance: ED negotiates compliance agreements with recipients found to be in violation, requiring corrective action; termination of federal assistance is a last resort after failure of voluntary compliance
  • § 110.36 — Hearing rights: before terminating financial assistance for noncompliance, ED must give the recipient an opportunity for a hearing; the hearing follows the Administrative Procedure Act formal adjudication procedures

  The practical significance of Part 110 for education programs: age-based exclusions from federally funded adult education programs, community colleges, Head Start, and after-school programs are directly covered. A state that sets an age cap on adult vocational training funded by federal dollars must justify that cap under the "normal operation" or "statutory objective" exceptions — general cost-control arguments do not qualify. Because most educational institutions (K-12 and higher ed) receive some federal financial assistance, Part 110's prohibition is effectively universal for the education sector.

• 31 CFR Part 23 — Department of the Treasury: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age (26 sections — Treasury's parallel implementation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 for programs receiving Treasury financial assistance, including CDFI Fund grants, community development programs, and Treasury-administered loan guarantee programs):

  • § 23.1 — Purpose: implements the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 for recipients of Treasury financial assistance; prohibits age-based exclusion from participation, denial of benefits, and discrimination in Treasury-funded programs
  • § 23.11 — Rules against discrimination: same general rule as ED's Part 110 — no person may be subjected to age discrimination under any program receiving Treasury financial assistance; the rule reaches CDFI Fund grant recipients, New Market Tax Credit program participants, and similar Treasury-assistance programs
  • § 23.13–23.14 — Exceptions: the "normal operation" and "statutory objective" exceptions parallel those in Part 110 and other agencies' regulations (all implementing the same statutory framework); "reasonable factors other than age" are also permitted where genuinely age-neutral (e.g., income requirements that disproportionately affect older applicants do not constitute age discrimination if income is genuinely the criterion)
  • § 23.17 — Special benefits for children and elderly: same presumption as Part 110 — age distinctions in programs designed for children or the elderly do not violate the Act
  • Enforcement: Treasury investigates complaints, conducts compliance reviews, and negotiates voluntary compliance agreements before pursuing termination of financial assistance; the enforcement framework mirrors other civil rights statutes administered by agency offices of civil rights

• 45 CFR Part 90 — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (26 sections — HHS's government-wide coordinating regulation for the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; issued as the federal lead coordinating agency, it sets baseline standards that all federal agencies must meet when issuing their own Age Discrimination Act implementing regulations):

  • § 90.11 / § 90.12 — Government-wide prohibition: any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance must not, on the basis of age, exclude any person from participation, deny any person the program's benefits, or subject any person to discrimination; the prohibition applies to all federally-assisted programs regardless of funding agency — from USDA rural development loans to DOE energy efficiency grants to HHS Medicaid funding
  • § 90.13–90.15 — Exceptions: age distinctions are permitted if (a) necessary to the "normal operation" of a program (e.g., a children's literacy program is operating normally, not discriminating); (b) necessary to achieve a "statutory objective" where Congress mandated age targeting; or (c) based on "reasonable factors other than age" — factors that genuinely bear on program effectiveness regardless of any correlation with age
  • § 90.16 — Burden of proof: the recipient operating an age-based distinction must prove it falls within an exception — complainants are not required to disprove the exception; this allocation prevents recipients from simply asserting an age rule is "normal" without substantiation
  • § 90.17 — Special benefits for children and elderly: recipients may provide special benefits to children or the elderly without violating the Act — Congress endorsed targeted programs for these populations; denying access to a generally available program is discrimination; offering an additional benefit to only the elderly is permissible
  • § 90.41–90.49 — Enforcement: HHS's Office for Civil Rights may conduct compliance reviews and investigate complaints; complaints must be filed within 180 days; before terminating assistance, HHS must afford a hearing and attempt voluntary compliance

• 45 CFR Part 91 — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from HHS (26 sections — HHS's agency-specific Age Discrimination Act implementation, applying the Act to programs HHS funds: Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Title IV social services, Head Start, HRSA health center grants, SAMHSA substance abuse grants, and all other HHS financial assistance):

  • § 91.11 — HHS prohibition: prohibits age discrimination in all HHS-funded programs; Part 91's reach is exceptionally broad — virtually every hospital (through Medicare/Medicaid), community health center (through HRSA grants), and social services organization (through Title XX or TANF-related grants) receiving any HHS assistance is a covered entity
  • § 91.13–91.14 — Normal operation and statutory objective exceptions: most HHS programs serving age-defined populations (nursing home programs for the elderly, pediatric preventive care) fall within the normal operation exception (the program's purpose is inherently age-targeted) or the special benefits exception (Congress specifically authorized age-targeted programs in the Social Security Act and other HHS organic statutes)
  • § 91.17 — Special benefits presumption: HHS programs like Medicaid home- and community-based services for elderly beneficiaries, Head Start for children ages 0–5, and CHIP for children under 19 are not age-discriminatory merely because they target specific age groups
  • § 91.21 — Mediation: complainants and recipients may agree to mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) before HHS initiates formal enforcement; FMCS mediators are neutral and do not represent HHS's enforcement interests; mediation agreements are binding if both parties sign
  • § 91.31–91.39 — Investigation: HHS's OCR investigates complaints; recipients must permit OCR access to facilities, records, and personnel; noncompliance may result in corrective action plans or — as a last resort — referral to DOJ for enforcement or termination of HHS funding

  The relationship between Part 90 (government-wide) and Part 91 (HHS-specific) reflects the Age Discrimination Act's dual implementation structure: Part 90 sets the floor all agencies must meet, while Part 91 applies those standards to HHS programs with agency-specific adjustments. For program participants, the practical effect is the same: any federally-funded health or human services program may not discriminate based on age, and HHS's OCR is the enforcement vehicle for both tracks.

Pending Legislation (119th Congress)

• S 1820 (Sen. Baldwin, D-WI) — Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Would establish a single mixed-motive proof standard across major civil rights laws, easing the burden for age-discrimination plaintiffs. Status: Introduced.
• HR 3522 (Rep. Scott, D-VA) — Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2025. Companion bill adopting a motivating-factor proof standard for ADEA claims, shifting remedies toward injunctions and fees, with federal-employee coverage. Status: Introduced.
• HR 7524 — Older Workers' Bureau Act. Would create an Older Workers Bureau within the Department of Labor to research age-discrimination trends, coordinate training programs, and fund anti-ageism grants. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

• Age discrimination claims have increased as the workforce ages and older workers remain employed longer
• The Gross v. FBL Financial but-for causation standard continues to make ADEA claims more difficult than Title VII claims
• AI and algorithmic hiring tools have raised new age discrimination concerns — facially neutral algorithms may produce age-discriminatory outcomes
• Remote work has both helped (reducing visibility of age) and complicated (digital skills assumptions) age discrimination dynamics
• The EEOC has increased focus on age discrimination in hiring, launching targeted investigations of employers with age-skewed hiring patterns