ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, is the federal statute that protects workers 40 and older from age-based discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, promotion, layoff, and the terms of employment. It applies to employers with 20 or more employees.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- ADEA at 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. protects workers age 40 and older, applies to employers with 20+ employees, and uses a "but-for" causation standard.
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009) 557 U.S. 167 set the but-for bar, higher than Title VII's motivating-factor test.
- California pairs ADEA with FEHA, which reaches 5+ employers and gives a three-year CRD window vs. the EEOC's 300 days.
- Direct-evidence remarks ("new blood," "fresh perspective," "runway ahead") and replacement-by-younger-worker data are the proof patterns juries respond to.
The ADEA sits at 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. The protected class is workers age 40 and up; the law does not protect workers under 40 from "reverse" age discrimination. Unlike Title VII, ADEA plaintiffs must show age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse action under Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009) 557 U.S. 167, a higher bar than the "motivating factor" test some other federal statutes use.
Example: A 58-year-old senior accountant is laid off during a "restructuring." The CFO replaces her position three months later with a 31-year-old hire, and internal emails from the CFO reference the need to "bring in fresh blood." Those emails are direct evidence of age animus and support an ADEA claim. Filing window: 300 days with the EEOC because California has a parallel agency in the CRD.
FEHA in California parallels the ADEA but covers smaller employers (5+) and has a three-year filing window. Most California age cases are filed under FEHA for that reason. A California employment discrimination lawyer can preserve both claims by dual-filing.
From our practice: We rarely litigate age cases on the ADEA alone. FEHA covers more employers, has a longer filing window, and does not require but-for causation, which is a meaningful gap once the evidence is mixed. The smart move in California is almost always to dual-file and let FEHA carry the recovery.
Attorney Advertising. Page reviewed by David M. Safvati, CA Bar #326605. This advertisement is the responsibility of Westview Law PC.
