A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

The ADEA protects older workers from employment discrimination

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against a worker for reasons of age. It protects all workers over 40 from employment discrimination due to age. Such illegal discrimination is prohibited with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation and any other term, condition or privilege of employment. In California, the ADEA exists alongside state laws that also provide protection from age discrimination to workers.

The federal law applies to companies that have 20 or more employees. In a case in another state, a man is suing Amtrak for eliminating his position and hiring younger employees to do similar work. The man was promoted to a management position in 2006. In 2013, the company had a round of layoffs, and the plaintiff’s job was eliminated. At age 58, he was able to use his union seniority to stay on in a non-management position, but has applied unsuccessfully for several management jobs since then.  

He alleges that younger employees were all favored for the management jobs he applied for since 2013. The lawsuit is filed in a federal district court located in Louisiana. He is seeking a restoration a management position, and payment of the substantial compensation and benefits that he lost when demoted. He also seeks for distress, anxiety, punitive damages and legal fees.

It is not uncommon in California or elsewhere to see a company eliminate an older worker’s position whom it wants to drum out of the company. The company can then hire younger workers to do the same work for much less in compensation and benefits, saving the company substantial amounts of money. In that situation, one tipoff of illegal employment discrimination is where it can be proved that the younger workers are performing the same tasks as those contained within the eliminated job category. In that event, it is reasonable to believe that the company’s elimination of the older worker’s job was a subterfuge for getting rid of that person and saving considerable sums in the process.

Source: louisianarecord.com, “Employee says Amtrak guilty of age discrimination“, Molly English-Bowers, Nov. 20, 2015

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.