Age Equity in the Workplace: Strengthening Compliance Under the ADEA

Age discrimination is one of the most overlooked compliance risks facing employers today. As organizations work to build equitable, data-driven HR practices, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) remains a critical, yet often misunderstood, pillar of equal employment opportunity.

The ADEA protects workers and applicants aged 40+ and applies to private employers with at least 20 employees, along with state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal contractors. Under the act, employers are prohibited from making decisions related to hiring, firing, compensation, promotions, benefits, training, and other employment conditions based on age.

With increasing complaints being submitted to the EEOC for investigation, shifting workforce demographics, and increased litigation, the ability to analyze age-related trends has become not just a best practice, but a strategic necessity. The challenge is that age discrimination isn’t always obvious. While most hiring managers know not to ask someone’s age during an interview or use phrases like “young and energetic” in job postings, there may be unintentional discrimination occurring within relatively neutral business practices. Knowing whether this is happening is the responsibility of the employer; if you don’t know the impact certain business decisions are having on your employees, especially those that are part of a protected group, “I didn’t know” won’t be enough of an excuse when faced with an EEOC complaint.

Why It Matters

While the workforce is rapidly aging and employees are staying longer in their careers due to several factors, such as rising life expectancy and financial considerations, age-based complaints to the EEOC remain consistently high. This indicates that age discrimination is far from a resolved issue and one that may get progressively more pervasive as employees delay retirement. These claims often carry significant legal and financial risk, as older employees tend to have longer tenure, higher compensation, and more to lose when discriminatory decisions occur.

An important note to age-discrimination claims is that the negative employment action doesn’t have to be intentional for a claim to be valid. Disparate impact, or when a seemingly neutral employment decision unintentionally discriminates against an employee or applicant’s age, is one of the more common reasons for an age-related claim. Some examples of practices that could cause a negative impact against older workers include – only posting job openings on social media forums (older workers may not use social media for job searches), advertising for ‘recent graduates’ in job postings, or targeting the highest-paid/ longest tenured employees when conducting workforce reductions unless an employer can show the action was based on a reasonable factor other than age.

What Should Employers Do?

To mitigate any potential risk and minimize financial repercussions, organizations should ensure their employment practices do not unintentionally discriminate based on age. This can be done by implementing some or all of the following suggestions into routine business practices:

• Train managers regularly on age bias awareness so they can recognize common stereotypes that could be based on age (e.g., older workers are resistant to change, less tech-savvy, or nearing retirement or younger workers are inexperienced or unreliable).
• Review job ads, performance reviews, and termination processes for age-related language or patterns and make appropriate changes.
• Audit neutral policies for unintentional age-based outcomes by examining how policies operate in practice and not just how they are written.
• Conduct adverse impact analyses on hiring practices, promotions, and before any layoffs or reductions in force.
• Run compensation and pay equity analyses to ensure age-based compensation decisions are not influencing pay outcomes, such as offering lower starting salaries to older employees, granting bonuses and larger raises to younger employees, and failing to adjust pay for long-tenured employees.

These steps aren’t just about avoiding lawsuits—they’re about creating a culture where experience and knowledge are valued. By understanding age-related trends, identifying disparities early, and implementing strong analytic practices, employers can not only reduce legal risk but also build healthier, more inclusive, and more effective workplaces.