<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Age Discrimination » Employment Law Information Network</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.elinfonet.com/category/federal/adea/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.elinfonet.com</link>
	<description>All Things Labor and Employment Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:46:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>First Circuit Evaluates PIP as Evidence of Age Discrimination</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/first-circuit-evaluates-pip-as-evidence-of-age-discrimination/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ogletree Deakins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=163477</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Walsh v. HNTB Corp. that placing an employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP) did not constitute age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the working conditions remained the same.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/first-circuit-evaluates-pip-as-evidence-of-age-discrimination/">First Circuit Evaluates PIP as Evidence of Age Discrimination</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hostile Work Environment Claims Under the ADEA: Lessons from the Seventh Circuit</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/hostile-work-environment-claims-under-the-adea-lessons-from-the-seventh-circuit/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ogletree Deakins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=136922</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>May an employee assert a hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)? In Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit responded affirmatively, and, in so doing, joined a number of its sister circuits that had previously</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/hostile-work-environment-claims-under-the-adea-lessons-from-the-seventh-circuit/">Hostile Work Environment Claims Under the ADEA: Lessons from the Seventh Circuit</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer Paying Six Figure Settlement Based on EEOC Claims that AI Software Discriminated Against Older Applicants</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/employer-paying-six-figure-settlement-based-on-eeoc-claims-that-ai-software-discriminated-against-older-applicants/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CDF Labor Law LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=50084</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Bloomberg Law reported earlier today that the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) reached a settlement for $365,000 with iTutorGroup, Inc. after the federal agency filed a complaint against the employer alleging that its artificial intelligence (“AI”) software automatically rejected female tutor applicants over 55 and male tutor applicants over 60. According to the complaint, the age [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/employer-paying-six-figure-settlement-based-on-eeoc-claims-that-ai-software-discriminated-against-older-applicants/">Employer Paying Six Figure Settlement Based on EEOC Claims that AI Software Discriminated Against Older Applicants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fifth Circuit Rules Age-Related Comments Must Be Specific to Defeat Summary Judgment</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/fifth-circuit-rules-age-related-comments-must-be-specific-to-defeat-summary-judgment/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ogletree Deakins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=35427</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling concerning the discharge of Michael Harris from his position with the City of Schertz as the city marshal. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit gave a bit more clarity on the situations in which comments made by an employer or</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/fifth-circuit-rules-age-related-comments-must-be-specific-to-defeat-summary-judgment/">Fifth Circuit Rules Age-Related Comments Must Be Specific to Defeat Summary Judgment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sixth Circuit: Employee-Driven Talk About Retirement Does Not Prove Employer’s Discriminatory Pretext</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/sixth-circuit-employee-driven-talk-about-retirement-does-not-prove-employers-discriminatory-pretext/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ogletree Deakins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 14:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=34816</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Talking to an employee about her retirement plans when considering the termination of her employment as discipline for a policy violation is not per se age discrimination, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/sixth-circuit-employee-driven-talk-about-retirement-does-not-prove-employers-discriminatory-pretext/">Sixth Circuit: Employee-Driven Talk About Retirement Does Not Prove Employer’s Discriminatory Pretext</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sixth Circuit Rejects EEOC&#8217;s Push to Broaden the Causation Standard in Age Discrimination Lawsuits</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/sixth-circuit-rejects-eeocs-push-to-broaden-the-causation-standard-in-age-discrimination-lawsuits/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ford Harrison]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 13:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=25397</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., the Sixth Circuit recently held that ageist comments attributed to a bank’s CEO were insufficient evidence to support an employee’s claim that she was fired because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Two of the three statements in question related to another employee in [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/sixth-circuit-rejects-eeocs-push-to-broaden-the-causation-standard-in-age-discrimination-lawsuits/">Sixth Circuit Rejects EEOC’s Push to Broaden the Causation Standard in Age Discrimination Lawsuits</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC: Non-U.S. Citizen Employees Working Abroad May Be Excluded from OWBPA Disclosures</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/eeoc-non-u-s-citizen-employees-working-abroad-may-be-excluded-from-owbpa-disclosures/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jackson Lewis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=22050</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>For years, U.S. employers with international operations have struggled to understand their obligations under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) when implementing reductions-in-force and group layoffs.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/eeoc-non-u-s-citizen-employees-working-abroad-may-be-excluded-from-owbpa-disclosures/">EEOC: Non-U.S. Citizen Employees Working Abroad May Be Excluded from OWBPA Disclosures</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Issues Guidance on Inclusion of International Employees on OWBPA Disclosures</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/eeoc-issues-guidance-on-inclusion-of-international-employees-on-owbpa-disclosures/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Littler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=22006</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued long-awaited and much-needed clarification on whether non-U.S. citizen employees working for a U.S. employer outside the United States must be included in the disclosure required for compliance with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).&#160; The EEOC</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/eeoc-issues-guidance-on-inclusion-of-international-employees-on-owbpa-disclosures/">EEOC Issues Guidance on Inclusion of International Employees on OWBPA Disclosures</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claims in Trio of ADA Disability Access Cases</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/ninth-circuit-rejects-plaintiffs-claims-in-trio-of-ada-disability-access-cases/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ogletree Deakins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/?p=17100</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In a big win for Starbucks and all other restauranteurs, retailers, and places of public accommodation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in three related cases (Johnson v. Starbuck Corp., Lindsay v. Starbucks Corp., and Kong v. Starbucks Corp.) that accessible sales and service counters are</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/ninth-circuit-rejects-plaintiffs-claims-in-trio-of-ada-disability-access-cases/">Ninth Circuit Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claims in Trio of ADA Disability Access Cases</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Cross-Generational Viral Internet Phrases in the Workplace Create Unlawful Age Discrimination?</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/can-cross-generational-viral-internet-phrases-in-the-workplace-create-unlawful-age-discrimination/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/can-cross-generational-viral-internet-phrases-in-the-workplace-create-unlawful-age-discrimination/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jackson Lewis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2019 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/can-cross-generational-viral-internet-phrases-in-the-workplace-create-unlawful-age-discrimination/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>“OK Boomer” is having a moment on the internet, appearing often in viral jokes and memes. It is widely considered an all-purpose retort by the younger generations of Millennials and Gen Z’ers to dismiss thoughts and ideas they view as too old-fashioned. Some even use “OK Boomer” to discount opinions stereotypically attributed to the Baby [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/can-cross-generational-viral-internet-phrases-in-the-workplace-create-unlawful-age-discrimination/">Can Cross-Generational Viral Internet Phrases in the Workplace Create Unlawful Age Discrimination?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/can-cross-generational-viral-internet-phrases-in-the-workplace-create-unlawful-age-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seventh Circuit Rules Age Bias Protections Don’t Extend to Prospective Employees For Disparate Impact Claims</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-rules-age-bias-protections-dont-extend-to-prospective-employees-for-disparate-impact-claims/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-rules-age-bias-protections-dont-extend-to-prospective-employees-for-disparate-impact-claims/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Littler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2019 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-rules-age-bias-protections-dont-extend-to-prospective-employees-for-disparate-impact-claims/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A recent federal court decision opened the door for employers to recruit and hire candidates who are either recent graduates or have limited work experience without risking liability for certain claims of age discrimination.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-rules-age-bias-protections-dont-extend-to-prospective-employees-for-disparate-impact-claims/">Seventh Circuit Rules Age Bias Protections Don’t Extend to Prospective Employees For Disparate Impact Claims</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-rules-age-bias-protections-dont-extend-to-prospective-employees-for-disparate-impact-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seventh Circuit Limits Job Applicants&#8217; Age Discrimination Claims</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-limits-job-applicants-age-discrimination-claims/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-limits-job-applicants-age-discrimination-claims/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ford Harrison]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-limits-job-applicants-age-discrimination-claims/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Executive Summary: A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, recently ruled 8-4 that job applicants may not bring claims for unintentional age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In rejecting plaintiff Dale Kleber’s claim, the court chiefly relied on the text of the statute, but also [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-limits-job-applicants-age-discrimination-claims/">Seventh Circuit Limits Job Applicants’ Age Discrimination Claims</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-limits-job-applicants-age-discrimination-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court: Age Discrimination in Employment Act Applies to All State, Local Government Employers</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-applies-to-all-state-local-government-employers/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-applies-to-all-state-local-government-employers/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jackson Lewis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2018 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-applies-to-all-state-local-government-employers/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to state and local government employers, regardless of their size, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous (8-0) seven-page decision. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587 (Nov. 6, 2018).</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-applies-to-all-state-local-government-employers/">Supreme Court: Age Discrimination in Employment Act Applies to All State, Local Government Employers</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-applies-to-all-state-local-government-employers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-hears-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-case/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-hears-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-case/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jackson Lewis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-hears-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-case/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions?</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-hears-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-case/">Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/supreme-court-hears-age-discrimination-in-employment-act-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seventh Circuit Opines on &#8220;Reasonable Factor Other Than Age&#8221; Defense to ADEA Claim Stemming from Benefit Plan Elimination</title>
		<link>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-opines-on-reasonable-factor-other-than-age-defense-to-adea-claim-stemming-from-benefit-plan-elimination/</link>
					<comments>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-opines-on-reasonable-factor-other-than-age-defense-to-adea-claim-stemming-from-benefit-plan-elimination/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Littler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2018 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-opines-on-reasonable-factor-other-than-age-defense-to-adea-claim-stemming-from-benefit-plan-elimination/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed whether a company’s liquidation plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because it caused a disparate impact on older workers. O’Brien v. Caterpillar Inc. No. 17-2956 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2018). The Seventh Circuit held that although the liquidation plan did statistically [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-opines-on-reasonable-factor-other-than-age-defense-to-adea-claim-stemming-from-benefit-plan-elimination/">Seventh Circuit Opines on “Reasonable Factor Other Than Age” Defense to ADEA Claim Stemming from Benefit Plan Elimination</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.elinfonet.com">Employment Law Information Network</a>.</p>]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.elinfonet.com/seventh-circuit-opines-on-reasonable-factor-other-than-age-defense-to-adea-claim-stemming-from-benefit-plan-elimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
