Xem Nhiều 11/2022 #️ The State Of Age Discrimination And Older Workers In The U.s. 50 Years After The Age Discrimination In Employment Act (Adea) / 2023 # Top 17 Trend | Trucbachconcert.com

Xem Nhiều 11/2022 # The State Of Age Discrimination And Older Workers In The U.s. 50 Years After The Age Discrimination In Employment Act (Adea) / 2023 # Top 17 Trend

Cập nhật thông tin chi tiết về The State Of Age Discrimination And Older Workers In The U.s. 50 Years After The Age Discrimination In Employment Act (Adea) / 2023 mới nhất trên website Trucbachconcert.com. Hy vọng nội dung bài viết sẽ đáp ứng được nhu cầu của bạn, chúng tôi sẽ thường xuyên cập nhật mới nội dung để bạn nhận được thông tin nhanh chóng và chính xác nhất.

by Victoria A. LipnicJune 2018 Acting ChairU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dear Reader,

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the effective date of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) — one of the premier statutes enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

When I first joined the EEOC in April 2010, the job market was very different than it is today. The effects of the Great Recession were still being widely felt throughout the economy, and predictions were that it would take the nation 10 years or more to recover from steep job losses. At the EEOC, we were concerned that these job losses would hit older workers particularly hard.

Accordingly, shortly after I joined the Commission, one of the first public Commission meetings we held in November 2010, was about the ” Impact of the Economy on Older Workers.”

Fast forward to today, and as of this month, the nation is experiencing its lowest unemployment rate in 18 years. Instead of shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, the economy is gaining them. This is very good news for America’s workers.

But consider this: older workers who lose a job have much more difficulty finding a new job than younger workers. A 54-year-old worker who may have lost his job in early 2008 at the beginning of the Great Recession is now 64 years old. The average unemployment duration for a 54-year-old was almost a year, and it may have taken that person two or three years to find a new job. Further, that new job may not have been on a par with the one he had before. To make up for that financial loss, he will likely need to work longer than originally planned.

Now consider a 54-year-old worker who loses her job in today’s economy. Today, jobs are plentiful and conditions are much more favorable for finding new jobs compared to 10 years ago. But, there is one constant for today’s 54-year-old and the one from 10 years ago — age discrimination.

As experts testified at the EEOC’s meeting in June 2017 on The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, age discrimination remains a significant and costly problem for workers, their families, and our economy.

A few additional points for your consideration. Today’s Baby Boomers range in age from 54 to 72 and because of that nearly 20-year span in age, they have widely different considerations about work and retirement. While about 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day, many have inadequate savings for retirement. Work life has changed dramatically since Boomers entered the workforce. Instead of a career spanning one industry and a few positions as was expected at the beginning of their careers, most workers today are expected to have 11 different jobs in the modern, dynamic economy. Right behind the Boomers, the leading edge of Generation X are now in their early 50’s. And, in 2016, Millennials surpassed the Baby Boomers as the largest segment of the workforce in 2016.

The scene having now been set, I offer this report, marking the 50th anniversary of when the ADEA took effect, culminating a year-long recognition by the EEOC of the importance of the ADEA as a significant civil rights law. While it is not exhaustive (as there are treatises devoted to the ADEA, after all), it is meant to serve as a guide to the history and significant developments of the law.

I hope the report also serves to put to rest outdated assumptions about older workers (who should more aptly be described as “experienced workers”) and about age discrimination, which harm workers, their families and our economy. Today’s experienced workers are healthier, more educated, and working and living longer than previous generations. Age-diverse teams and workforces can improve employee engagement, performance, and productivity. Experienced workers have talent that our economy cannot afford to waste.

I want to thank the staff at the EEOC for their contributions to this report, especially Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, whose passion for all things ADEA is priceless (and perhaps ageless).

Victoria A. Lipnic Acting Chair U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

June 2018

I. Overview

In passing the ADEA, Congress recognized that age discrimination was caused primarily by unfounded assumptions that age impacted ability.[4] To prevent and stop such arbitrary discrimination, the ADEA requires employers to consider individual ability, rather than assumptions about age, in making an employment decision.

A few years after the ADEA was enacted, the Senate Special Committee on Aging noted that the “ADEA was enacted, not only to enforce the law, but to provide the facts that would help change attitudes.”[5] It was commonly assumed that at some age and in some jobs, age limited the abilities of older workers.[6] Today we ask: have attitudes about older workers, their abilities, and age discrimination changed in the wake of the ADEA over the past 50 years? Have employment practices changed to promote the employment of older workers?

This report examines the current state of age discrimination and older workers in the U.S. 50 years after the ADEA took effect in June 1968. It begins with a brief review of the history of the ADEA and its enforcement by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the EEOC. It describes the significant changes in who the older worker of today is compared to the typical older worker of 1967.Today’s older workers are more diverse and more educated than previous generations. They are healthier and working and living longer. The women and men confronting age discrimination today are in all parts of our country — in rural and urban communities, in blue and white-collar jobs, in service and tech industries, and are of all races, ethnicities and income.

This report acknowledges the significant harm and costs to older workers, their families, and employers that age discrimination causes. It is time to put to rest outdated and unfounded assumptions about age, older workers, and discrimination. Changing practices can help change attitudes. Thisreport concludes with promising practices for employers to not only avoid age discrimination, but to recognize the value of a multi-generational workforce. Simply put, our economy cannot afford to waste the knowledge, talent, and experience of older workers.[10]

II. A Brief History of the ADEA

A. The 1965 Wirtz Report

The Wirtz Report examined the nature, scope, and consequences of age discrimination in the workplace of the 1960s. It found that employers believed age impacted ability. It also found that without any factual basis or consideration of individual abilities, employers routinely barred workers in their 40s, 50s, and 60s from a wide range of jobs.[15]

The Wirtz Report found that one-half of employers used age limits to deny jobs to workers age 45 and older.[19] It found vast differences in perceptions of age and physical ability with some employers refusing to hire workers after age 25 and others hiring workers until age 60 for jobs involving comparable physical capabilities.[20]

B. The 1967 ADEA

Recognizing the challenge of changing both employment practices and attitudes about age and ability,[32] Congress set forth ambitious purposes for the ADEA:

It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.[33]

Congress crafted a statute based on provisions from both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[34] The ADEA shares Title VII’s purpose to eliminate discrimination from the workplace.[35] The ADEA’s prohibitions were taken verbatim from Title VII,[36] as was its narrow exception for the use of age as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).[37] Courts interpret this language from Title VII, including its prohibitions and the BFOQ exception, to apply with “equal force” to the ADEA’s substantive provisions.[38] The remedies of the ADEA, by contrast, flow from the FLSA. When initially enacted, Congress limited ADEA coverage to individuals age 40 to 64[39] and again directed the Secretary of Labor to study the ages protected by the statute.[40]

C. Amendments to the ADEA[41]

In its first decade, the ADEA was expanded to cover federal, state and local government employees.[42] Congress sought to provide older workers with the same basic civil rights as other workers.[43]

With each significant amendment to the ADEA, Congress laid out the scientific evidence refuting any assumed correlation between age and ability.[44] At the same time, however, the early versions of the ADEA essentially fostered the belief that age affected ability by capping the age of coverage — initially at 65, and then at age 70 in 1978.[45] These age caps on coverage permitted employers to deny jobs to the oldest workers and to force workers to retire based solely on age.[46] Congress finally resolved this tension in the 1986 amendments to the ADEA, which removed the age-70 cap on coverage.[47] Congress supported removal of the age-70 cap with both scientific[48] and public opinion evidence for the fact that age is not predictive of job-related ability or performance.[49]

The most extensive revisions to the ADEA occurred in 1990 when Congress enacted the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)[50] in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts.[51] The OWBPA amended the ADEA to restore its original congressional intent to prohibit age discrimination in employee benefits,[52] and established new minimum standards for voluntary waivers and releases of ADEA claims or rights.[53]

D.Enforcement of the ADEA

1. Department of Labor (1968 – 1979)

2. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1979 – Present)

III. Demographics of the Older American Workforce

A. Significant Growth in the Older Workforce

Today’s US labor force has doubled in size,[87] and is older, more diverse, more educated, and more female than it was 50 years ago.[88]

Age of Civilian US Labor Force (Chart 1):

These trends are expected to continue for decades.[89] One of the most notable changes in the American workforce over the past 50 years is that it has aged significantly with the aging of the Baby Boom generation (79 million people) over that time.[90]

Increased labor force participation by older women is a significant factor in this growth of the older workforce. Women age 55 and older are projected to make up over 25 percent of the women’s labor force by 2024, which is almost double their share from 2000. BLS also forecasts that twice as many women over 55 will be in the labor force as women ages 16-24 by 2024. BLS also estimates that women over 65 will make up roughly the same percentage of the female workforce as older men do of the male workforce.[94]

Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition of Labor Force Participants Ages 65+, 1971 – 2017 (Chart 3)

The Great Recession of 2007-2009 [100](also known as the Great Dislocation[101]) forced many older workers to revise their retirement plans and to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings. It left many older workers less confident that they would have sufficient income for a comfortable retirement.[102] As a result, the Great Recession flipped retirement plans and expectations for older workers. [103] Prior to 2009, most Americans planned to retire before age 65.[104] Since then, most say they will retire after age 65.[105]

Unfortunately, retirement expectations frequently do not pan out. For example, one study reports that while 40 percent of workers planned to work until age 70 or later, only 4 percent actually do.[106] Unexpected events such as ill health, caregiving responsibilities, getting laid off, and age discrimination can thwart the best-laid plans.

B. Increasing Diversity of the Older Worker Population

Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition of Labor Force Participants Ages 55-64, 1971 – 2017 (Chart 2)[115]

C. Older Workers are Employed in Many Occupations and Industries

The five most common jobs for men and women age 62 and older are:[122]

Men Women Top occupations % of older workers Top occupations % of older workers

Delivery workers and truck drivers

3.95

Teachers, except postsecondary

6.30

Janitors and building cleaners

2.99

Secretaries and administrative assistants

6.04

Farmers and ranchers

2.58

Personal care aides

3.60

Postsecondary teachers

2.39

Registered nurses

3.45

Lawyers

2.37

Child care workers

3.36

Notably, many of the most common jobs held by older workers require a college education (e.g., teachers, lawyers, nurses), and/or are physically demanding (e.g., delivery workers, janitors, aides, and nurses.) [123]

Today, it is estimated that about 44 percent of older workers are employed in jobs with some physical demands or difficult working conditions.[124] The extent of physical demands in a job can vary considerably. For example, only about seven percent of all American workers and six percent of older workers hold highly physically demanding jobs, and this number is projected to decline to about five percent by 2041.[125]

IV. The Nature and Scope of Age Discrimination in Employment Today

Discrimination today, whether based on age, race, sex or other protected characteristics, frequently derives from stereotypes and unconscious bias,[128] although blatant or explicit discriminatory practices still exist.

A. The Persistent Drivers of Age Discrimination

Given the dramatic changes in our understanding of aging, work, and discrimination, it is time to put aside such outdated assumptions about aging and age discrimination; the ADEA was intended and continues to be an important tool to do just that.

1. Research Demonstrates that Age Does Not Predict Ability

Decades of social science research document that age does not predict one’s ability, performance, or interest.[132] Aging and its effect on cognitive abilities is highly individualized, as ability, agility and creativity vary widely among people of the same age.[133] Many older people out-perform or perform as well as young people,[134] and intellectual functions can actually improve with age.[135] While speedy thinking may decline over time, middle-aged brains adapt to reach solutions faster, make sounder judgments, and better navigate the complex world of today.[136] Innovation and creativity span the age spectrum as well.[137]

2. Today, Age Discrimination is More Like, Than Different from, Other Forms of Discrimination.

The notion that age discrimination is different than other forms of discrimination because of different historical origins is a central premise of the Wirtz Report and continues to seep into ADEA jurisprudence today. For example, even recently, a judge questioned a plaintiff’s evidence of age discrimination by saying:

No, age is different because we are all going to get old … but when you’re talking about gender or race or ethnicity those are immutable characteristics as the Supreme Court has said. But it’s a little bit different because all of us are going to be older or elderly one day.[141]

When examined through today’s understanding of how discrimination operates, age discrimination is more like, than different from, other forms of discrimination.

First, as a legal matter, Congress made irrelevant the view of the Wirtz Report that age discrimination was different by using the same words to prohibit age discrimination as it used in Title VII to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, and religion.[142] Congress clearly viewed employment discrimination as a unified phenomenon suited to a unified legislative solution, regardless of whether the protected characteristic was age, race, sex, or another basis protected by Title VII.

Second, all employment discrimination shares prejudices about the competence of members of the protected group. For example, race discrimination unquestionably originated from a long history of malice, prejudice and intolerance. Yet, race discrimination also derives from negative views and stereotypes about the abilities of workers of a particular race,[143] like age discrimination does.

Third, when one compares age to sex discrimination, there are again important similarities. There is substantial evidence that in the 1960s, people believed that one’s gender determined one’s abilities, interests and qualifications,[144] just like age. Sex discrimination, like age discrimination, often results from stereotypes about women’s abilities and on assumptions about the appropriate roles of women in the workplace and society.[145]

In sum, age discrimination shares a commonality with other forms of discrimination, just as the ADEA and Title VII share common purposes and prohibitions. Thus, this notion that age discrimination is “different” should not justify less protection for older workers in interpreting the ADEA.

B. Prevalence of Age Discrimination

It is difficult to measure with any accuracy the prevalence of discrimination in the workplace. One indicator of the prevalence of age discrimination is based on research of the perception of age discrimination by older workers in surveys. Another indicator is age discrimination claims. Most discriminatory and harassing conduct is unreported,[146] which means charges filed with federal and state enforcement agencies represent a fraction of the likely discrimination that occurs in the workplace.

1. Perceptions of Age Discrimination

ADEA Charges by Gender (Chart 4)

African Americans/Blacks report much higher rates of having experienced age discrimination or knowing someone who had, at 77 percent, compared to 61 percent for Hispanics/Latinos and 59 percent for Whites.[150] More women than men also say older workers face age discrimination.[151]

2. EEOC Charge Data

Older workers facing age discrimination can file ADEA charges with the EEOC or with state and local Fair Employment Practice agencies. While most older workers say they have seen or experienced age discrimination, only 3 percent report having made a formal complaint to someone in the workplace or to a government agency.[155] This suggests vast underreporting of the problem of age discrimination.

ADEA Charges by Age Group (Chart 6)

The demographics of older workers who file ADEA charges have changed markedly since 1967. The most dramatic change is in the gender of those filing ADEA charges, as depicted in Chart 4 below. In 1990, almost twice as many ADEA charges were filed by men than were filed by women. In 2010, the number of women filing age charges surpassed the number of men filing age charges for the first time, a trend that continues today.

ADEA Charges Alleging Age and Race, Age and Sex, Age and Disability Discrimination (Chart 7)

With each passing decade, the racial diversity of those who file age discrimination charges also is growing (Chart 5). The percentages of charges alleging age discrimination filed by Blacks[160] and Asians[161] doubled by 2017 compared to 1990 charge filings. The percentage of ADEA charges filed by Whites declined by over one third (from 68 percent to 42 percent).

Additionally, the age of those filing ADEA charges has changed dramatically (Chart 6). In 1990, workers in the age 40-54 age cohort filed the majority of ADEA charges and workers in the age 65+ cohort filed relatively few. But by 2017, more charges were filed by workers ages 55-64 than the younger age cohort. Moreover, by 2017, the percentage of charges filed by workers age 65 and older was double what it was in 1990.

The percentage of charges alleging age discrimination plus race, sex or disability has also increased dramatically over the past 20 years as the older workforce has become more diverse. (Chart 7).

C. Discriminatory Practices

While the ADEA has eliminated or changed many employment practices that explicitly used age to bar opportunities to older workers, discriminatory practices continue today to deny older workers equal opportunity. Research shows that older workers’ continued denial of equal opportunity often derives from negative stereotypes.[162] Indeed, there is strong “evidence that age bias and negative age stereotypes about older workers continue to affect older workers’ employment experiences.”[163]

1. Discriminatory Discharge, Terms and Conditions, and Harassment are the Most Common Practices Alleged in ADEA Charges.

Unlawful discharge has always been the most common practice asserted in charges filed with the EEOC[164] and that remains true for ADEA charges as well. In fiscal year 2017, 55 percent of ADEA charges alleged discriminatory discharge. Twenty-five years ago, about 45 percent of ADEA charges claimed unlawful discharge. ADEA lawsuits alleging unlawful discharge based on age, including constructive discharge, based on age have similarly dominated ADEA litigation, with one study finding discharges raised in 73 percent of ADEA district court and appellate court cases.[165]

The next most common allegations in ADEA charges have varied over the years. Age-based harassment claims more than tripled by 2017 to 21 percent, compared to 6 percent in 1992. The types of harassment experienced by older workers is often like that experienced by other workers.[166] ADEA charges raising claims of discriminatory terms or conditions nearly doubled to 25 percent in 2017 from 13 percent in 1992. Finally, allegations of discriminatory discipline nearly quintupled to 11.6 percent in 2017 from only 2.5 percent in 1992.

2. Age Discrimination in Hiring Remains a Significant Barrier for Older Workers.

3. Mandatory Retirement and Discriminatory Denial of Benefits Have Also Dominated ADEA Litigation.

The legality of early retirement incentives[177] and pension plans[178] that denied or reduced benefits based on age have been frequent claims in ADEA litigation. After the Supreme Court held that the ADEA did not generally prohibit discrimination in employee benefit plans in Public Employees Retirement System v. Betts,[179] Congress enacted the OWBPA[180] to make clear that the ADEA prohibits an employer from denying or reducing benefits based on age, except in specific circumstances sanctioned by the OWBPA.[181]

The ADEA was initially construed to protect retiree health benefits and prohibit the use of Medicare eligibility to determine benefits for retirees in Erie County RetireesAss ‘n v. County of Erie, Pennsylvania.[182] Based on concerns that employer-sponsored health benefits would be dropped in their entirety unless employers could use Medicare-eligibility to determine their availability, the EEOC issued a regulatory exemption from the ADEA permitting the coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare or a comparable state health benefit plan.[183]

4. Intersectional Claims

The EEOC has long recognized the theory of “intersectional discrimination”[184] under both Title VII[185] and the ADEA[186] when an individual is treated differently because he or she belongs to more than one protected category and is subjected to a set of stereotyping unique to his or her status. The availability of an intersectional claim has become increasingly important for older women as more of them experience both age and sex discrimination.[187]

D. Harm of Age Discrimination

The financial and emotional harm of age discrimination on older workers and their families is significant. Once an older worker loses a job, she will likely endure the longest period of unemployment compared to other age groups and will likely take a significant pay cut if she becomes re-employed.[188] The loss of a job has serious long-term financial consequences as older workers often must draw down their retirement savings while unemployed, and are likely to suffer substantial losses in income if they become re-employed.[189]

Age discrimination also has significant monetary costs for employers. Lawsuits can impose substantial costs for employers for violating the ADEA,[194]which just a few examples demonstrate. The largest ADEA suit to date, Arnett v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System,[195] settled for $250,000,000, and a permanent injunction against the state pension system and 1,500 local agencies, for reducing the disability pension benefits of police and firefighters based on age. Sprint Nextel settled an ADEA collective action for $57.5 million for 1700 older workers laid off between 2001 and 2003.[196] An age discrimination lawsuit brought by 129 older workers at the Livermore National Laboratory settled for $37.5 million in 2015.[197]

V. State Law Protections

When Congress was considering the ADEA in 1967, 24 states and Puerto Rico had laws prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace.[201] A majority of those state laws included a prohibition against age discrimination within an omnibus anti-discrimination law that also prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.[202] Rather than follow the predominant model used by the states that would add age to Title VII, Congress chose to create a separate federal law, the ADEA.

VI. The Recent Fissuring of the ADEA’s Ties to Title VII

Experts have testified before the EEOC expressing concerns about Supreme Court decisions in the past decade and a half that have severed the ADEA from its ties to Title VII, by relying on textual differences between the ADEA and Title VII, rather than their shared purposes and prohibitions.[207] The most significant ADEA case that experts point to that divorces the ADEA from Title VII precedent is Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.[208] Gross held that older workers could no longer use the motivating factor framework derived from the same Title VII prohibition[209] shared by the ADEA to prove unlawful age discrimination. Instead, the Supreme Court reasoned that the 1991 addition to Title VII of a provision setting forth a motivating factor framework did not apply to the ADEA because Congress failed to similarly amend the ADEA.[210]

Thus, while individuals with race or sex discrimination claims under Title VII can prove unlawful disparate treatment under either a “but for” causation standard or a “motivating factor” standard, victims of age discrimination are limited to just one — a “but for” standard.[211] And even though the Supreme Court said in Gross that there is no heightened standard to prove age discrimination,[212] some courts have interpreted Gross as making ADEA cases harder to prove.[213] This can be extremely problematic for older women and older minorities who often bring claims under both the ADEA and Title VII.[214]

VII. Moving Forward: Preventing Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Too many older Americans continue to face discrimination based on persistent stereotypes and outdated assumptions about age and work. Age discrimination is legally wrong and has been since the ADEA took effect five decades ago. But it remains too common and too accepted in today’s workplace. While attitudes about older workers, their abilities, and age discrimination have improved somewhat over the past 50 years, much more can and should be done to make age discrimination less prevalent and less accepted.

First and foremost, workplace culture determines whether workers are valued without regard to age or whether they are devalued based on age.[218] The leadership of an organization is obviously critical to creating and fostering a culture that is committed to a multi-generational workplace where all workers can grow and thrive.[219] Workplace cultures that extol ability and reject discriminatory stereotypes and words result in more diverse, productive and engaged workforces.

Second, employers and employees can also help prevent age discrimination in the workplace by recognizing and rejecting stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about age and older workers just as they reject such stereotypes, assumptions and remarks about someone’s sex, race, disability, national origin, or religion.

In addition, the following strategies were recommended by experts at EEOC meetings to avoid age discrimination, increase age diversity in the workplace, and value a multi-generational workforce.

A. Increasing the Age Diversity of the Workforce

Based on research studies and their work with employers, experts recommend several strategies that can prevent biases from entering into recruitment, hiring, and human resource practices. One significant but often overlooked strategy is to include age in diversity and inclusion programs and efforts. A study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that 64 percent of firms surveyed in its 2015 Annual Global CEO survey had diversity & inclusion strategies, but only 8 percent of those included age.[220] Yet, the benefits of doing so appear to have strong positive outcomes for both employers and employees.

An initial assessment of an organization’s culture, practices, and policies may reveal outdated assumptions about older workers that could taint objective decisionmaking and limit opportunities. The Center on Aging & Work at Boston College, along with AARP, has developed an assessment tool that evaluates organizational strengths and weaknesses in attracting, managing, and retaining a multigenerational workforce.[224]

B. Recruitment and Hiring Strategies

With low unemployment and growing shortages of skilled, qualified workers, hiring older workers can help employers fill what has become known as the “skills gap” — the lack of trained or experienced workers for higher-skilled jobs. Their employment also furthers economic and social policies that encourage continued work to strengthen personal financial well-being and our economy.[225]

Recruitment practices can avoid age bias by seeking workers of all ages and not limiting qualifications based on age or years of experience. Over 94 percent of working Americans visit companies’ social media pages when searching for a job.[226] Websites and social media that include age-diverse photos, graphics, and content demonstrate a commitment to attracting a multi-generational workforce. Applications, whether online or paper, should not ask date of birth or other age-related questions, just as they should not ask an applicant to identify her race or sex.

Training recruiters and interviewers to avoid ageist assumptions and even common perceptions about older workers is critical. For example, the assumption that hiring a younger worker is less expensive and a better return on investment than hiring an older worker is outdated and flawed. Contrary to common perception, older workers do not cost significantly more than younger workers, as structural changes in compensation and benefits have created a more age-neutral distribution of labor costs.[227] And the presumed investment based on the assumption that the younger worker will be with the employer longer is less likely these days. Millennials are leaving their employers, on average, after three years, whereas older workers, on average, provide employers with more stability, longer tenures, and ultimately a greater return on investment.[228]

Experts also recommend an assessment of interviewing strategies to avoid age bias, as studies and experience show that interviewers tend to favor job candidates who remind them of themselves.[229] An age-diverse interview panel for prospective employees may be viewed more positively by candidates and may be less vulnerable to implicit bias. Training interviewers as to how to frame age-neutral questions and using a standard or structured process can help avoid age bias throughout the interview process.[230]

C. Retention Strategies

Effective retention strategies decrease unexpected turnover costs and loss of institutional knowledge, and increase engagement and productivity. Age is positively correlated with employee engagement, as workers age 50 and older have the highest levels of engagement in the workplace.[231] And high employee engagement increases employee productivity.[232]

Experts recommend strategies to provide career counseling, training and development opportunities to workers at all ages and at all stages of their careers. Mixed-age and reverse-age mentoring can increase worker productivity and satisfaction.[233] Workers of all ages value flexible work options that can provide work/life balance at various times in their careers.[234]

Conclusion

The ADEA has helped to bring equality and fairness to the workplace for older workers. But age discrimination persists based on outdated and unfounded assumptions about older workers, aging and discrimination. No one should be denied a job based on stereotypes and it’s time to put these outdated assumptions to rest. Ability, experience and commitment matter, not age. To achieve the promise of the ADEA, it’s time to recognize the value of age diversity in the workplace and the benefits of a multi-generational workforce.

[2] Pub. L. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56 (1963) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)).

[10] “If more skilled workers over 60 stayed in the workforce, it would make a significant impact on reducing the skilled worker shortage in the United States.” Written Testimony of John Challenger, CEO, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., The ADEA 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017).

[11] H.R. 10144 sought to prohibit “arbitrary employment discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry or age.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-1370, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 2155 (1962).

[12] The amendment to add a prohibition of age discrimination to Title VII failed in the House by a vote of 123 to 94. 110 chúng tôi 2596-99 (1964).The Senate rejected a similar amendmentby a vote of 63 to 28. 110 chúng tôi 9911-13 (1964). Some ADEA historians claim that the move to add age discrimination to TitleVII was intended to defeat passage, like the move to add sex discrimination. See Daniel P. O’Meara, Protecting The Growing Numbers of Older Workers: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act 11 (1989); Disparate Impact Analysis and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 64 Minn. L. Rev. 1038, 1053 (1984); Alfred W. Blumrosen, Interpreting the ADEA: Intent or Impact, Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Compliance and Litigation Manual for Lawyers and Personnel Practitioners, 106-15 (1982). Historians also disagree on the reasons Congress added sex to Title VII. J. Freeman, How Sex Got into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as A Maker of Public Policy, 9 Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 163-184 (1991); M.E. Gold, A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for The Issue of Comparable Worth, 19 Duquesne Law Rev. 453-477 (1980).

[13] Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, § 715, 78 Stat. 265 (1964).

[29] See Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 , S. Rep. No. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 13-14 (1967) (statement of Sen. Javits). In the House, John H. Dent and Carl D. Perkins were the leading proponents of the ADEA.

[30] The House approved H.R. 13054 on December 4, 1967 by a vote of 344 to 13. 113 Cong. Rec. 34752 (Dec. 4, 1967). By unanimous consent, the Senate approved amendments to S.830 from the House bill. 113 Cong. Rec. 35055-57 (Dec. 5, 1967). The House, by unanimous consent, concurred on December 6, 1967. 113 Cong. Rec. 35132 (Dec. 6, 1967). President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill on December 15, 1967. (113 Cong. Rec. 37125 (Dec. 15, 1967). Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 607 (1967).

[32] As Senator Yarborough, one of the leading sponsors of the ADEA, explained:

a great deal of the problem stems from ignorance: there is simply a widespread irrational belief that once men and women are past a certain age they are no longer capable of performing even some of the most routine jobs.

113 Cong. Rec. 31254 (1967); See Improving the Age Discrimination Law, supra note 5, at III.

[36] “[T]the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII.” Lorillard, 434 U.S. at 584. The Court cited to both prohibitions in Title VII § 703(a)(1) and (2), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1), (2), in comparing the almost identical language in the ADEA’s prohibitions §§4(a)(1), (2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), (2). Id. at n. 12.

[39] “The prohibitions in this Act shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty years of age but less than sixty-five years of age.” Pub. L. No. 90-202, § 12 (1967).

[42] The Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1974, § 28(a)(4), expanded the ADEA’s definition of “employer” at § 630(b) to include state and local governments of any size and added another new provision, § 633a, to protect federal employees age 40 to 70. Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 74-76 (1974). In contrast, Title VII was amended in 1972 to cover state and local government employers that employ fifteen or more individuals through an addition to the definition of “persons” covered by the Act. Pub. L. No. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (1972).

[43] “The committee believes that as a matter of basic civil rights people should be treated in employment based on their individual ability to perform a job rather than based on stereotypes about race, sex, or age.” S. REP. 95-493, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 1977, at 3; 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 504, 1977 WL 9644.

Scientific research now indicates that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job….

… A person with the ability and desire to work should not be denied that opportunity solely because of age. The Act’s current age limitation unfairly assumes that age alone provides an accurate measure of an individual’s ability to perform work. In fact, the evidence clearly establishes the continued productivity of workers who are 65 years of age and older.

… the arguments for retaining existing mandatory retirement policies are largely based on misconceptions rather than a careful analysis of the facts.

See also Mandatory Retirement: The Social and Human Cost of Enforced Idleness,H.R. Rep. Select Comm. On Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. VII (1977); The Next Steps in Combating Age Discrimination in Employment: With Special Reference to Mandatory Retirement Policy, A Working Paper, S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 1 (1977).

The House and Senate Reports for the 1986 ADEA Amendments cited to a 1985 study by psychologists David Waldman and Bruce Avolio on the relationship between age and performance. The study “found that contrary to popular belief, older workers can be just as productive as their younger counterparts” and found little support for the belief that job performance declines with age. Eliminating Mandatory Retirement, A Report by The Chairman of The Subcomm. on Health and Long-Term Care of The Select Comm. on Aging , H.R. Rep. No. 99-561, at 107-08 (2d Sess. 1986); Working Americans: Equality at Any Age: Hearing Before the S. Spec. Comm. on Aging,99th Cong. (1986).

[45] Pub. L. No. 95-256, § 12(a), 92 Stat. 189 (1978).

[54] See 112 Cong. Rec. 20823 (1966) (statement of Sen. Javits); 113 Cong. Rec. 7076 (1967) (statements of Sen. Javits); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 , S. Rep. No. 723, at 13-14 (1st Sess. 1967) (statements of Sen. Javits) (opposing Administration’s bill which would create a “wholly unnecessary new bureaucracy” with DOL).

[55] See Hearings on S. 830, S. 788 Before the Subcomm. on Labor of the S. Comm. on Labor and Pub. Welfare, 90th Cong. 24, 29, 396 (1967) (statements of Sen. Javits and Sen. Smathers); Age Discrimination in Employment – Proposed Amendments to S.830 Administration Bill, Before the S. Subcomm. On Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 113 Cong. Rec. 7076 (1967) (statement of Sen. Jacob Javits) (“The EEOC is already years behind in disposing of its docket.”); Craig Robert Senn, Ending Discriminatory Damages, 64 Ala. L. Rev. 187, 203 (2012) (summarizing legislators’ concerns that the EEOC was under-resourced to handle enforcement of the ADEA, given lengthy EEOC charge backlog and “the possibility that age discrimination enforcement would be neglected in favor of other forms of discrimination.”).

[56] The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) enforced the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

“There is medical evidence, for example, to support the contention that such is generally not the case. In many instances, an individual at age 60 may be physically capable of performing heavy-lifting on a job, whereas another individual of age 30 may be physically incapable of doing so.”

Id.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: 1979 To 1982, An Information Paper Prepared by the Staff of the S. Spec. Comm. on Aging[59] DOL counted charges based on the number of respondents, while the EEOC counts charges by the numbers of charging parties. Thus, a layoff of 30 employees by a single employer on which ADEA charges have been filed would be counted as one charge by DOL and 30 charges by the EEOC. See S. Spec. Comm. on Aging,, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 98-691 at 3 (1982).

[62] Message of the President, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 19807, 92 Stat. 3781 (May 9, 1978).

[65] “[T]he Commission has devoted substantially more to its ADEA program than the $3.5 million budget and 119 positions transferred from Labor. Indeed, the Commission transferred Title VII positions into the age enforcement program during both fiscal years 1980 and 1981. The current budgetary allocation for the ADEA program is 128 positions and approximately $14 million.” S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: 1979 To 1982 , supra note 59, at 3.

[69] See Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-283, 102 Stat. 78 (1988). Congress reinstated the rights of charging parties to file lawsuits who had lost that right when the EEOC failed to process ADEA charges within the two or three-year statute of limitation. The ADCAA extended the time for filing lawsuits for an additional 540 days (18 months). Congress authorized a second extension of the ADEA statute of limitations in 1990 when the EEOC again failed to timely process ADEA charges. See also, Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-504, 104 Stat. 1298 (1990) (providing charging parties an additional 450 days in which to file their own private ADEA lawsuits, while permitting the EEOC to process the backlog of age discrimination charges).

[72] In EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the 1974 extension of the ADEA to state governments as employers was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and rejected a Tenth Amendment challenge to the ADEA. However, in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 78-79 (2000), the Court held that the ADEA did not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for monetary relief by individuals. Kimel explicitly limits its holding to suits by private individuals and reaffirmed the holding in EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), that state and local government employers are covered by the ADEA. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 91 (“We hold only that, in the ADEA, Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity against suits by private individuals.”)

[77] See EEOC v. Seasons 52, No. 15-CV-20561-JAL (S.D. Fla. 2018) (consent decree settling claims for failure to hire based on age); Texas Roadhouse,

[78] 29 U.S.C. § 628.

[79] The regulations explaining the waiver requirements of the OWBPA were the product of a negotiated rulemaking, the first time the EEOC had used such a procedure that brought experts together to develop regulations for consideration by the Agency. Waivers of Rights and Claims Under the ADEA,63 Fed. Reg. 30628 (June 5, 1998) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22).

[80] Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare and Sate Health Benefits, 72 Fed. Reg. 72945 (Dec. 2007) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625.32).

[81] Coverage Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 72 Fed. Reg. 36875 (Jul. 2007).

[82] Differentiations Based on Reasonable Factors Other Than Age, 77 Fed. Reg. 19095 (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625).

[88] Mitra Toossi, Dep’t of Lab., Bureau of Lab. Stat., A Century of Change: The U.S. Labor Force, 1950 – 2050, Table 5, Civilian Labor Force by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1950 – 2000 and Projected, 2010 – 2050, Monthly Lab. Rev. 15 (2002). See also Written Statement of Patrick Button, Assistant Professor Dep’t of Econ., Tulane U., The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017) (“The United States is experiencing an aging population that is increasingly trying to work longer….”).

[90] Patrick Purcell, Cong. Research Serv., Older Workers: Employment and Retirement Trends (2007).

[96] From 2008 to 2010, more than three out of every four adults age 65 and over rated their health as good, very good, or excellent. Fed. Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Stat. , Older Americans 2012: Key Indicators of Well-Being (2012).

[97] The qualifying age for full Social Security retirement benefits has been increasing since 2000. In 2020, eligibility for full Social Security retirement benefits will be 67 years of age. CDC, Older Employees in the Workplace, Issue Brief No. 1 (2012) (citing Patrick Purcell, Congressional Research Service, Older Workers: Employment and Retirement Trends (2009)).

[103] A 2017 Gallup survey reported “there has been a seismic shift since 1995 in the age at which non-retirees believe they will retire. In two polls conducted that year, an average of 14% said they expected to retire after 65 and 49% before 65. These percentages have flipped in the last two decades, as the age to start collecting Social Security has risen to 67 and more Americans feel a financial need to stay in the workforce.” Gallup, Most U.S. Employed Adults Plan to Work Past Retirement Age (2017).

[107] Workers’ expectations regarding when and how they will retire represent a dramatic change from long-held societal notions about fully retiring at age 65. Although the numbers vary based on who was surveyed and the date of the survey, nearly 3 out of 4 workers plan to work past age 65. Gallup, Most U.S. Employed Adults Plan to Work Past Retirement Age (2017). This increase is five times the 14 percent who said this in 1995. Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup, Americans Settling on Older Retirement Age (2015). In the same study, 63 percent plan to work part-time and 11 percent say they will work full-time. Id.Thirteen percent of older workers surveyed say they do not plan to retire at all. Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, 17th Annual Retirement Survey, 16, 258-60 (2016).

[119] AARP, Staying Ahead of the Curve – The Career and Work Study (2013) (Sample of 1502 workers ages 45-74; defining blue collar as skilled and semi-skilled labor, unskilled labor, and service and protective occupations; white collar as technician/minor administrative, clerical, and sales; and executive/professional as executive/admin/mgmt. jobs, top talent/major or less professional jobs, small business owners, and farmers.)

[120] David Baer, Older Workers: More Likely to Work Part Time, AARP Pub. Pol’y Inst. (Feb. 2015). Some older workers have had to settle for part-time jobs because they could not obtain full-time employment. Id.

[125] Templin, 89 Or. L. Rev. at 1238; Johnson et al., Employment at Older Ages and the Changing Nature of Work at 11, 14.

[128]Barbara F. Reskin, The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination, 29 Contemporary Soc. 319, 320 (Vol. 2 March 2000) (“much discrimination stems from normal cognitive processes” of “stereotyping, attribution bias, and evaluation bias” which “introduce sex, race, and ethnic biases into our perceptions, interpretations, recollections, and evaluations of others.”).

[132] “Scientific research now indicates that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job.” Amending the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1977, S. Rep. 95-493, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 2-4 (1977). See Schaie, The Longitudinal Study: A 21-year Exploration of Psychometric Intelligence in Adulthood,” in Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological Development, 33 (K. W. Schaie, ed. 1983) (studies show no decline in average intelligence at until age 80); McEvoy & Cascio, Cumulative Evidence of the Relationship between Employee Age and Job Performance, 74 J. of Appl. Psych. 11 (1989) (finding age bears no relationship to employee performance); (studies show no decline in average intelligence at least until age 80); Staudinger, Cornelius & Baltes, The Aging of Intelligence: Potential and Limits, 503 The Annals, 43, 45-46 (1989)(“Persons of the same chronological age are not identical as to their mental status. There are 70-year-olds who function like 30-year-olds and vice versa.”); Diane B. Howelson, Cognitive Skills and the Aging Brain: What to Expect, Cerebrum (Dec. 1, 2015).

[138] Glen P. Kenny, Herbert Groeller, Ryan McGinn, and Andreas D. Flouris, Age, Human Performance, and Physical Employment Standards, 41 Applied Physiology, nutrition, and Metabolism (2016) (“the extent of the decline in physical functioning, and therefore the risk of work-related injuries or illness, is dependent on a myriad of individual factors including lifestyle, level of physical activity and fitness, and general health.”)

[143] See Bruno Bettelheim & Morris Janowitz, Soc. Change and Prejudice at 11 (1964). Isis H. Settles, Nicole T. Buchanan, & Stevie C. Y. Yap, Race discrimination in the workplace, at 8, Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination (M. A. Paludi, C. A. Paludi Jr., & E. DeSouza Eds., Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers 2010) (“discrimination – negative behaviors enacted toward members of a particular group – typically stem from prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes”); L. Duke, “White’s Racial Stereotypes Persist: Most Retain Negative Beliefs About Minorities, Survey Finds,” Washington Post (Jan. 9, 1991), p. A1.

[147] In AARP’s 2017 study of age discrimination, 61 percent of those age 45 and older reported seeing or experiencing age discrimination. Perron, supra note 9. This is a slight decrease from the 64.5% reporting personal experience with age discrimination in AARP’s 2013 study. See AARP, Staying Ahead of the Curve 2013: AARP Multicultural Work and Career Study Perceptions of Age Discrimination in the Workplace – Ages 45-74 (2013 survey of 1,500 workers age 45-74 reported that sixty four percent said they had seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace).

[151] In AARP’s 2017 survey, 64 percent of women and 59 percent of men say they have seen or experienced age discrimination. While AARP’s 2013 survey similarly found more women (72 percent) than men (57 percent) responded that older workers face age discrimination, the 2017 responses show a decline in the perception of age discrimination for women, but an increase in that perception for men.

[156] See The Next Steps in Combating Age Discrimination in Employment: With Special Reference to Mandatory Retirement Policy, A Working Paper, S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 7 (1977).

[158] 18th Ann. Rep. of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10 (Sept. 4, 1984).

[160] In 1990, 14 percent of ADEA charges were filed by African Americans, which nearly doubled to 27 percent in 2017.

[161] In 1990, 1 percent of ADEA charges were filed by Asians, which tripled to 3 percent in 2017.

[162] “[N]umerous negative stereotypes about older workers still exist that often prevent or have a negative impact on employment opportunities for older people.” See Written Testimony of Dr. Sara J. Czaja, Director, CREATE (Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement), and Director of the Center on Aging at the University of Miami, The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017). “Several studies have found evidence of biases against older adults during recruitment and hiring.” See Written Testimony of Jacquelyn B. James, supra note 102. See also Written Statement of Michael Campion, Professor, Purdue University, Age Discrimination in the 21st Century — Barriers to the Employment of Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009).

[167] CAREEREALISM Releases 2015 Age Discrimination Survey Results, supra note 149; Perron, supra note 9. Yet few older workers file formal complaints of hiring discrimination, as age discrimination is often difficult to detect and to prove. See Perron, supra note 9 (only 3 percent formally complain); Written Testimony of Joseph Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Public Input into the Development of EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012) (hiring discrimination is hard to detect).

[170] Neumark, David, Ian Burn, and Patrick Button, Is It Harder for Older Workers to Find Jobs? New and Improved Evidence from a Field Experiment (NBER, Working Paper No. 21669, 2015) cited in Written Testimony of Patrick Button, supra note 88; ” Is there age discrimination in hiring?” BLS Monthly Labor Review (April 2017); ” Age Discrimination and the Hiring of Older Workers” (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter, no. 2017-06, February 27, 2017).

[177] See EEOC v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corr., 648 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that an age “cliff” that foreclosed any retirement incentive to individuals once they reached age 55 was inconsistent with the purposes of the ADEA.); Jankovitz v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 421 F.3d 649, 653 (8th Cir. 2005) (early retirement incentive plan that made employees age 65 or older ineligible for benefits was facially discriminatory). See also Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, Take the Money and Run or It’s Too Late Baby: Early Retirement Incentives and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 Univ. of Memphis L.R. 783 (1999) (collecting cases).

[178] See EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., 747 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (requirement that older new-hires make larger pension contributions than younger new-hires for the same benefits violated ADEA). In a series of suits against New York municipal volunteer fire departments, EEOC challenged the denial of service credit for volunteer firefighters who worked past the entitlement age for retiremen t benefits. EEOC v. Bayville Fire Co., No. 07-cv-4472 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 8, 2010); EEOC v. Brentwood Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3298 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Mar. 14, 2011); EEOC v. Village of Minneola, No. 08-cv-973 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Jan. 20, 2010); EEOC v. Selden Fire Dist., No. 08-cv-3974 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 16, 2010); EEOC v. Eaton’s Neck Fire Dist., No. 08-cv-5089 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Oct. 30, 2009); EEOC v. Oyster Bay Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3297 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Sep. 16, 2011); EEOC v. Amityville Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3742 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Mar. 15, 2011); EEOC v. Village of N. Syracuse, No. 12-cv-1465 (N.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 3, 2013). See also Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135, 143 (2008); Arnett v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999) (injunction against CalPERS and some 1500 local agencies from enforcing a 1980 statue that reduced disability pension benefits of older police officers and firefighters from 50 percent of final compensation to as little as 13 percent); AARP v. Farmers Grp. Inc., 943 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming summary judgment and award of liquidated damages to employees who continued working past age 65 but were denied profit sharing and pension contributions).

[179] 492 U.S. 158 (1989). The Betts decision caused the dismissal of many pending ADEA benefits cases that had been brought by the EEOC and private litigants. See Age Discrimination in Employee Benefit Plans: The Impact of the Betts Decision: Joint Hearing Before the Select Comm. on Aging and the Subcomms. on Employment Opportunities and Labor-Management Relations of the H. Comm. on Education and Labor, 101 Cong. (1989) (statement of Charles A. Shanor, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the EEOC had 30 cases pending in trial and appellate courts, half of which would require dismissal due to the Betts decision; statement of Robert Laufman, Attorney at Law, Laufman, Rauh, and Gerhardstein) reprinted in 2 EEOC legislative history of the older workers benefit protection act of 1990 at 743, 732 (1991).

[180] Pub. L. No. 101-433, 104 Stat. 978.

[181] The OWBPA codified the specific language of the equal benefit or equal cost rule from the EEOC’s regulations, 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B)(i) and 29 C.F.R. § 1625.10, and provided narrow exceptions for early retirement incentives and the coordination of severance benefits.

[183] 29 C.F.R. § 1625.32 (2003). The exemption was upheld in a lawsuit challenging it. AARP v. EEOC, 489 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2007).

[194] Research on the success rate of ADEA plaintiffs prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL shows higher rates of success in the 1980s and 1990s than more recent decades. See Eglit, supra note 164. (analysis of ADEA cases decided in 1996 shows older workers prevailed in 29 percent of substantive ADEA cases at the appellate level and 25 percent at the district court level; and had a 90 percent win rate in jury trials. Id. at 655 (recognizing that the strongest cases survive summary judgment, but often settle prior to trial). Another study of data collected by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for 1998-2001, ADEA plaintiffs won 21 percent of bench trials while the win rate for bench trials in employment discrimination cases overall was 26 percent. Kohrman & Hayes, Employers Who Cry “RIF” and the Courts That Believe Them, supra note 8, at 153.

[195] 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999).

[201] Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, chúng tôi No. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 2 (1967); chúng tôi No. 805, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 2 (1967).

[202] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-40 (1903); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (1965); 19 Del. Code § 711 (1960); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2 (1965); La. Rev. Stat. § 23:321 (1934), Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B (1937) (amended in 1950); N.J. Stat. § 10:5-12; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (1958); Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02 (1961); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030 (through Leg. Sess. 2011); 43 Pa. Stat. § 955 (1956); Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.180 (1961); Wis. Stat. §§ 111.321-322 (1959); P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (1960).

[203] Arkansas’ and Mississippi’s laws only apply to state government employees. Six states have stand-alone age discrimination laws separate from other employment discrimination laws (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska).

[204] See Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc., 671 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2012) (“There is just one Massachusetts statute that outlaws both age and gender discrimination (Chapter 151B)) (holding Gross does not apply to state law claim); Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151, 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (holding the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits age and other protected classes and declined to follow Grossin considering the proper standard of causation under FEHA); Wagner v. Board of Trustees for Connecticut State University, 2012 WL 668544 (Superior Ct. 2012) (“Given the legislature’s decision to include multiple types of unlawful employment discrimination within a single statutory provision without setting out distinctive standards for the different types, the logical conclusion is that it intended that the same standard of proof be applied to all the types of discrimination.”).

[207] Written Testimony of Michael Foreman, Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law, Impact of Economy on Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2010); Written Testimony of R. Scott Oswald, Principal, The Employment Law Group, Impact of Economy on Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2010); Written Statement of Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, President Workplace Fairness, Age Discrimination in the 21st Century — Barriers to the Employment of Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009). See Appendix B for a complete list of ADEA Supreme Court decisions, and at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/adea50th/supreme-court.cfm.

[208] 557 U.S. 167, 174 (2009).

[211] Several experts have examined the flaws they see in the Gross decision and the harm it has caused. See Mark R. Deethard, Life After Gross: Creating A New Center for Disparate Treatment Proof Structures, 72 La. L. Rev. 178 (2011); Michael Foreman, Gross v. FBL Financial Services – Oh So Gross! 40 U. Mem. L. Rev. 681 (2010); David Sherwyn & Michael Heisse, The Gross Beast of Burden of Proof: Experimental Evidence on How the Burden of Proof Influences Employment Discrimination Case Outcomes, 42 Ariz. St. L. J. 901 (2010).

[213] See Sherwyn, supra note 211; Written Testimony of Michael Foreman, supra note 207; Written Testimony of R. Scott Oswald, supra note 207. The retrial of Mr. Gross’ case demonstrates the difficulties resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision. Mr. Gross prevailed in his first jury trial when the jury was given a motivating factor instruction. In the second trial when the jury considered the exact same evidence but was instructed to apply a “but for” standard of causation rather than the motivating factor standard, the jury ruled against Mr. Gross — that he had not proven unlawful discrimination under the ADEA. Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 3498 Fed.Appx. 971, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2012).

[218] “Workplace culture has the greatest impact in allowing harassment to flourish, or conversely, in preventing harassment.” Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, Report of Co-Chairs, Chai R. Feldblum & Victoria A. Lipnic, at v, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (June 2016). Culture is especially important with respect to age discrimination that often arises from an unconscious application or stereotyped notion of ability. See Rebecca Hanner White & Linda Hamilton Krieger, Whose Motive Matters? Discriminating in Multi-Actor Employment Decision-Making, 61 La. L. Rev. 495, 508-09 (2001).

[225] In an extensive study of the economic effects of the aging population, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recommended encouraging people to work longer and to postpone retirement for their own financial security and for the benefit to the economy of prolonged employment. See Aging and the Macroeconomy: Long-Term Implications of an Older Population, Comm. on the Long‐Run Macro‐Econ. Effects of the Aging U.S. Population Study Requested by U.S. Cong.; funded by U.S. Treasury and Nat’l Inst. on Aging(2012).

[226] iCIMS, The Modern Job Seeker Report (2017).

[229] John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a firm specializing in recruitment and placement, testified before the EEOC that “[r]ecruiting and talent management gatekeepers in many companies’ staffing departments may not identify with or promote older applicants. If the initial interviewer cannot picture the older job seeker ‘fitting in,’ he or she will likely pass that applicant over for the position.” Written Testimony of John Challenger supra note 10. Challenger recommended educating recruitment and talent managers on the benefits of employing older workers, and providing financial incentives to improve age-diverse recruitment and hiring. Id. See also Written Testimony of Jacquelyn B. James, supra note 102.

[231] See Written Testimony of Laurie A. McCann, AARP Foundation Litigation, Promoting Diverse and Inclusive Workplaces in the Tech Sector, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n. 19 (2016).

[234] See Written Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem, supra note 220 (“[O]ffering nontraditional scheduling options for employees not only improves work-life balance for the employees, but it also allows organizations to recruit and retain motivated workers who may not be able or willing to work a traditional nine-to-five schedule.”)

by Victoria A. LipnicJune 2018 Acting ChairU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dear Reader,

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the effective date of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) — one of the premier statutes enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

When I first joined the EEOC in April 2010, the job market was very different than it is today. The effects of the Great Recession were still being widely felt throughout the economy, and predictions were that it would take the nation 10 years or more to recover from steep job losses. At the EEOC, we were concerned that these job losses would hit older workers particularly hard.

Accordingly, shortly after I joined the Commission, one of the first public Commission meetings we held in November 2010, was about the ” Impact of the Economy on Older Workers.”

Fast forward to today, and as of this month, the nation is experiencing its lowest unemployment rate in 18 years. Instead of shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, the economy is gaining them. This is very good news for America’s workers.

But consider this: older workers who lose a job have much more difficulty finding a new job than younger workers. A 54-year-old worker who may have lost his job in early 2008 at the beginning of the Great Recession is now 64 years old. The average unemployment duration for a 54-year-old was almost a year, and it may have taken that person two or three years to find a new job. Further, that new job may not have been on a par with the one he had before. To make up for that financial loss, he will likely need to work longer than originally planned.

Now consider a 54-year-old worker who loses her job in today’s economy. Today, jobs are plentiful and conditions are much more favorable for finding new jobs compared to 10 years ago. But, there is one constant for today’s 54-year-old and the one from 10 years ago — age discrimination.

As experts testified at the EEOC’s meeting in June 2017 on The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, age discrimination remains a significant and costly problem for workers, their families, and our economy.

A few additional points for your consideration. Today’s Baby Boomers range in age from 54 to 72 and because of that nearly 20-year span in age, they have widely different considerations about work and retirement. While about 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day, many have inadequate savings for retirement. Work life has changed dramatically since Boomers entered the workforce. Instead of a career spanning one industry and a few positions as was expected at the beginning of their careers, most workers today are expected to have 11 different jobs in the modern, dynamic economy. Right behind the Boomers, the leading edge of Generation X are now in their early 50’s. And, in 2016, Millennials surpassed the Baby Boomers as the largest segment of the workforce in 2016.

The scene having now been set, I offer this report, marking the 50th anniversary of when the ADEA took effect, culminating a year-long recognition by the EEOC of the importance of the ADEA as a significant civil rights law. While it is not exhaustive (as there are treatises devoted to the ADEA, after all), it is meant to serve as a guide to the history and significant developments of the law.

I hope the report also serves to put to rest outdated assumptions about older workers (who should more aptly be described as “experienced workers”) and about age discrimination, which harm workers, their families and our economy. Today’s experienced workers are healthier, more educated, and working and living longer than previous generations. Age-diverse teams and workforces can improve employee engagement, performance, and productivity. Experienced workers have talent that our economy cannot afford to waste.

I want to thank the staff at the EEOC for their contributions to this report, especially Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, whose passion for all things ADEA is priceless (and perhaps ageless).

Victoria A. Lipnic Acting Chair U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

June 2018

I. Overview

In passing the ADEA, Congress recognized that age discrimination was caused primarily by unfounded assumptions that age impacted ability.[4] To prevent and stop such arbitrary discrimination, the ADEA requires employers to consider individual ability, rather than assumptions about age, in making an employment decision.

A few years after the ADEA was enacted, the Senate Special Committee on Aging noted that the “ADEA was enacted, not only to enforce the law, but to provide the facts that would help change attitudes.”[5] It was commonly assumed that at some age and in some jobs, age limited the abilities of older workers.[6] Today we ask: have attitudes about older workers, their abilities, and age discrimination changed in the wake of the ADEA over the past 50 years? Have employment practices changed to promote the employment of older workers?

This report examines the current state of age discrimination and older workers in the U.S. 50 years after the ADEA took effect in June 1968. It begins with a brief review of the history of the ADEA and its enforcement by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the EEOC. It describes the significant changes in who the older worker of today is compared to the typical older worker of 1967.Today’s older workers are more diverse and more educated than previous generations. They are healthier and working and living longer. The women and men confronting age discrimination today are in all parts of our country — in rural and urban communities, in blue and white-collar jobs, in service and tech industries, and are of all races, ethnicities and income.

This report acknowledges the significant harm and costs to older workers, their families, and employers that age discrimination causes. It is time to put to rest outdated and unfounded assumptions about age, older workers, and discrimination. Changing practices can help change attitudes. Thisreport concludes with promising practices for employers to not only avoid age discrimination, but to recognize the value of a multi-generational workforce. Simply put, our economy cannot afford to waste the knowledge, talent, and experience of older workers.[10]

II. A Brief History of the ADEA

A. The 1965 Wirtz Report

The Wirtz Report examined the nature, scope, and consequences of age discrimination in the workplace of the 1960s. It found that employers believed age impacted ability. It also found that without any factual basis or consideration of individual abilities, employers routinely barred workers in their 40s, 50s, and 60s from a wide range of jobs.[15]

The Wirtz Report found that one-half of employers used age limits to deny jobs to workers age 45 and older.[19] It found vast differences in perceptions of age and physical ability with some employers refusing to hire workers after age 25 and others hiring workers until age 60 for jobs involving comparable physical capabilities.[20]

B. The 1967 ADEA

Recognizing the challenge of changing both employment practices and attitudes about age and ability,[32] Congress set forth ambitious purposes for the ADEA:

It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.[33]

Congress crafted a statute based on provisions from both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[34] The ADEA shares Title VII’s purpose to eliminate discrimination from the workplace.[35] The ADEA’s prohibitions were taken verbatim from Title VII,[36] as was its narrow exception for the use of age as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).[37] Courts interpret this language from Title VII, including its prohibitions and the BFOQ exception, to apply with “equal force” to the ADEA’s substantive provisions.[38] The remedies of the ADEA, by contrast, flow from the FLSA. When initially enacted, Congress limited ADEA coverage to individuals age 40 to 64[39] and again directed the Secretary of Labor to study the ages protected by the statute.[40]

C. Amendments to the ADEA[41]

In its first decade, the ADEA was expanded to cover federal, state and local government employees.[42] Congress sought to provide older workers with the same basic civil rights as other workers.[43]

With each significant amendment to the ADEA, Congress laid out the scientific evidence refuting any assumed correlation between age and ability.[44] At the same time, however, the early versions of the ADEA essentially fostered the belief that age affected ability by capping the age of coverage — initially at 65, and then at age 70 in 1978.[45] These age caps on coverage permitted employers to deny jobs to the oldest workers and to force workers to retire based solely on age.[46] Congress finally resolved this tension in the 1986 amendments to the ADEA, which removed the age-70 cap on coverage.[47] Congress supported removal of the age-70 cap with both scientific[48] and public opinion evidence for the fact that age is not predictive of job-related ability or performance.[49]

The most extensive revisions to the ADEA occurred in 1990 when Congress enacted the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)[50] in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts.[51] The OWBPA amended the ADEA to restore its original congressional intent to prohibit age discrimination in employee benefits,[52] and established new minimum standards for voluntary waivers and releases of ADEA claims or rights.[53]

D.Enforcement of the ADEA

1. Department of Labor (1968 – 1979)

2. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1979 – Present)

III. Demographics of the Older American Workforce

A. Significant Growth in the Older Workforce

Today’s US labor force has doubled in size,[87] and is older, more diverse, more educated, and more female than it was 50 years ago.[88]

Age of Civilian US Labor Force (Chart 1):

These trends are expected to continue for decades.[89] One of the most notable changes in the American workforce over the past 50 years is that it has aged significantly with the aging of the Baby Boom generation (79 million people) over that time.[90]

Increased labor force participation by older women is a significant factor in this growth of the older workforce. Women age 55 and older are projected to make up over 25 percent of the women’s labor force by 2024, which is almost double their share from 2000. BLS also forecasts that twice as many women over 55 will be in the labor force as women ages 16-24 by 2024. BLS also estimates that women over 65 will make up roughly the same percentage of the female workforce as older men do of the male workforce.[94]

Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition of Labor Force Participants Ages 65+, 1971 – 2017 (Chart 3)

The Great Recession of 2007-2009 [100](also known as the Great Dislocation[101]) forced many older workers to revise their retirement plans and to work longer to recoup drained retirement accounts and lost savings. It left many older workers less confident that they would have sufficient income for a comfortable retirement.[102] As a result, the Great Recession flipped retirement plans and expectations for older workers. [103] Prior to 2009, most Americans planned to retire before age 65.[104] Since then, most say they will retire after age 65.[105]

Unfortunately, retirement expectations frequently do not pan out. For example, one study reports that while 40 percent of workers planned to work until age 70 or later, only 4 percent actually do.[106] Unexpected events such as ill health, caregiving responsibilities, getting laid off, and age discrimination can thwart the best-laid plans.

B. Increasing Diversity of the Older Worker Population

Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition of Labor Force Participants Ages 55-64, 1971 – 2017 (Chart 2)[115]

C. Older Workers are Employed in Many Occupations and Industries

The five most common jobs for men and women age 62 and older are:[122]

Men Women Top occupations % of older workers Top occupations % of older workers

Delivery workers and truck drivers

3.95

Teachers, except postsecondary

6.30

Janitors and building cleaners

2.99

Secretaries and administrative assistants

6.04

Farmers and ranchers

2.58

Personal care aides

3.60

Postsecondary teachers

2.39

Registered nurses

3.45

Lawyers

2.37

Child care workers

3.36

Notably, many of the most common jobs held by older workers require a college education (e.g., teachers, lawyers, nurses), and/or are physically demanding (e.g., delivery workers, janitors, aides, and nurses.) [123]

Today, it is estimated that about 44 percent of older workers are employed in jobs with some physical demands or difficult working conditions.[124] The extent of physical demands in a job can vary considerably. For example, only about seven percent of all American workers and six percent of older workers hold highly physically demanding jobs, and this number is projected to decline to about five percent by 2041.[125]

IV. The Nature and Scope of Age Discrimination in Employment Today

Discrimination today, whether based on age, race, sex or other protected characteristics, frequently derives from stereotypes and unconscious bias,[128] although blatant or explicit discriminatory practices still exist.

A. The Persistent Drivers of Age Discrimination

Given the dramatic changes in our understanding of aging, work, and discrimination, it is time to put aside such outdated assumptions about aging and age discrimination; the ADEA was intended and continues to be an important tool to do just that.

1. Research Demonstrates that Age Does Not Predict Ability

Decades of social science research document that age does not predict one’s ability, performance, or interest.[132] Aging and its effect on cognitive abilities is highly individualized, as ability, agility and creativity vary widely among people of the same age.[133] Many older people out-perform or perform as well as young people,[134] and intellectual functions can actually improve with age.[135] While speedy thinking may decline over time, middle-aged brains adapt to reach solutions faster, make sounder judgments, and better navigate the complex world of today.[136] Innovation and creativity span the age spectrum as well.[137]

2. Today, Age Discrimination is More Like, Than Different from, Other Forms of Discrimination.

The notion that age discrimination is different than other forms of discrimination because of different historical origins is a central premise of the Wirtz Report and continues to seep into ADEA jurisprudence today. For example, even recently, a judge questioned a plaintiff’s evidence of age discrimination by saying:

No, age is different because we are all going to get old … but when you’re talking about gender or race or ethnicity those are immutable characteristics as the Supreme Court has said. But it’s a little bit different because all of us are going to be older or elderly one day.[141]

When examined through today’s understanding of how discrimination operates, age discrimination is more like, than different from, other forms of discrimination.

First, as a legal matter, Congress made irrelevant the view of the Wirtz Report that age discrimination was different by using the same words to prohibit age discrimination as it used in Title VII to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, and religion.[142] Congress clearly viewed employment discrimination as a unified phenomenon suited to a unified legislative solution, regardless of whether the protected characteristic was age, race, sex, or another basis protected by Title VII.

Second, all employment discrimination shares prejudices about the competence of members of the protected group. For example, race discrimination unquestionably originated from a long history of malice, prejudice and intolerance. Yet, race discrimination also derives from negative views and stereotypes about the abilities of workers of a particular race,[143] like age discrimination does.

Third, when one compares age to sex discrimination, there are again important similarities. There is substantial evidence that in the 1960s, people believed that one’s gender determined one’s abilities, interests and qualifications,[144] just like age. Sex discrimination, like age discrimination, often results from stereotypes about women’s abilities and on assumptions about the appropriate roles of women in the workplace and society.[145]

In sum, age discrimination shares a commonality with other forms of discrimination, just as the ADEA and Title VII share common purposes and prohibitions. Thus, this notion that age discrimination is “different” should not justify less protection for older workers in interpreting the ADEA.

B. Prevalence of Age Discrimination

It is difficult to measure with any accuracy the prevalence of discrimination in the workplace. One indicator of the prevalence of age discrimination is based on research of the perception of age discrimination by older workers in surveys. Another indicator is age discrimination claims. Most discriminatory and harassing conduct is unreported,[146] which means charges filed with federal and state enforcement agencies represent a fraction of the likely discrimination that occurs in the workplace.

1. Perceptions of Age Discrimination

ADEA Charges by Gender (Chart 4)

African Americans/Blacks report much higher rates of having experienced age discrimination or knowing someone who had, at 77 percent, compared to 61 percent for Hispanics/Latinos and 59 percent for Whites.[150] More women than men also say older workers face age discrimination.[151]

2. EEOC Charge Data

Older workers facing age discrimination can file ADEA charges with the EEOC or with state and local Fair Employment Practice agencies. While most older workers say they have seen or experienced age discrimination, only 3 percent report having made a formal complaint to someone in the workplace or to a government agency.[155] This suggests vast underreporting of the problem of age discrimination.

ADEA Charges by Age Group (Chart 6)

The demographics of older workers who file ADEA charges have changed markedly since 1967. The most dramatic change is in the gender of those filing ADEA charges, as depicted in Chart 4 below. In 1990, almost twice as many ADEA charges were filed by men than were filed by women. In 2010, the number of women filing age charges surpassed the number of men filing age charges for the first time, a trend that continues today.

ADEA Charges Alleging Age and Race, Age and Sex, Age and Disability Discrimination (Chart 7)

With each passing decade, the racial diversity of those who file age discrimination charges also is growing (Chart 5). The percentages of charges alleging age discrimination filed by Blacks[160] and Asians[161] doubled by 2017 compared to 1990 charge filings. The percentage of ADEA charges filed by Whites declined by over one third (from 68 percent to 42 percent).

ADEA Charges by Race (Chart 5)

Additionally, the age of those filing ADEA charges has changed dramatically (Chart 6). In 1990, workers in the age 40-54 age cohort filed the majority of ADEA charges and workers in the age 65+ cohort filed relatively few. But by 2017, more charges were filed by workers ages 55-64 than the younger age cohort. Moreover, by 2017, the percentage of charges filed by workers age 65 and older was double what it was in 1990.

The percentage of charges alleging age discrimination plus race, sex or disability has also increased dramatically over the past 20 years as the older workforce has become more diverse. (Chart 7).

C. Discriminatory Practices

While the ADEA has eliminated or changed many employment practices that explicitly used age to bar opportunities to older workers, discriminatory practices continue today to deny older workers equal opportunity. Research shows that older workers’ continued denial of equal opportunity often derives from negative stereotypes.[162] Indeed, there is strong “evidence that age bias and negative age stereotypes about older workers continue to affect older workers’ employment experiences.”[163]

1. Discriminatory Discharge, Terms and Conditions, and Harassment are the Most Common Practices Alleged in ADEA Charges.

Unlawful discharge has always been the most common practice asserted in charges filed with the EEOC[164] and that remains true for ADEA charges as well. In fiscal year 2017, 55 percent of ADEA charges alleged discriminatory discharge. Twenty-five years ago, about 45 percent of ADEA charges claimed unlawful discharge. ADEA lawsuits alleging unlawful discharge based on age, including constructive discharge, based on age have similarly dominated ADEA litigation, with one study finding discharges raised in 73 percent of ADEA district court and appellate court cases.[165]

The next most common allegations in ADEA charges have varied over the years. Age-based harassment claims more than tripled by 2017 to 21 percent, compared to 6 percent in 1992. The types of harassment experienced by older workers is often like that experienced by other workers.[166] ADEA charges raising claims of discriminatory terms or conditions nearly doubled to 25 percent in 2017 from 13 percent in 1992. Finally, allegations of discriminatory discipline nearly quintupled to 11.6 percent in 2017 from only 2.5 percent in 1992.

2. Age Discrimination in Hiring Remains a Significant Barrier for Older Workers.

3. Mandatory Retirement and Discriminatory Denial of Benefits Have Also Dominated ADEA Litigation.

The legality of early retirement incentives[177] and pension plans[178] that denied or reduced benefits based on age have been frequent claims in ADEA litigation. After the Supreme Court held that the ADEA did not generally prohibit discrimination in employee benefit plans in Public Employees Retirement System v. Betts,[179] Congress enacted the OWBPA[180] to make clear that the ADEA prohibits an employer from denying or reducing benefits based on age, except in specific circumstances sanctioned by the OWBPA.[181]

The ADEA was initially construed to protect retiree health benefits and prohibit the use of Medicare eligibility to determine benefits for retirees in Erie County RetireesAss ‘n v. County of Erie, Pennsylvania.[182] Based on concerns that employer-sponsored health benefits would be dropped in their entirety unless employers could use Medicare-eligibility to determine their availability, the EEOC issued a regulatory exemption from the ADEA permitting the coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare or a comparable state health benefit plan.[183]

4. Intersectional Claims

The EEOC has long recognized the theory of “intersectional discrimination”[184] under both Title VII[185] and the ADEA[186] when an individual is treated differently because he or she belongs to more than one protected category and is subjected to a set of stereotyping unique to his or her status. The availability of an intersectional claim has become increasingly important for older women as more of them experience both age and sex discrimination.[187]

D. Harm of Age Discrimination

The financial and emotional harm of age discrimination on older workers and their families is significant. Once an older worker loses a job, she will likely endure the longest period of unemployment compared to other age groups and will likely take a significant pay cut if she becomes re-employed.[188] The loss of a job has serious long-term financial consequences as older workers often must draw down their retirement savings while unemployed, and are likely to suffer substantial losses in income if they become re-employed.[189]

Age discrimination also has significant monetary costs for employers. Lawsuits can impose substantial costs for employers for violating the ADEA,[194]which just a few examples demonstrate. The largest ADEA suit to date, Arnett v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System,[195] settled for $250,000,000, and a permanent injunction against the state pension system and 1,500 local agencies, for reducing the disability pension benefits of police and firefighters based on age. Sprint Nextel settled an ADEA collective action for $57.5 million for 1700 older workers laid off between 2001 and 2003.[196] An age discrimination lawsuit brought by 129 older workers at the Livermore National Laboratory settled for $37.5 million in 2015.[197]

V. State Law Protections

When Congress was considering the ADEA in 1967, 24 states and Puerto Rico had laws prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace.[201] A majority of those state laws included a prohibition against age discrimination within an omnibus anti-discrimination law that also prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.[202] Rather than follow the predominant model used by the states that would add age to Title VII, Congress chose to create a separate federal law, the ADEA.

VI. The Recent Fissuring of the ADEA’s Ties to Title VII

Experts have testified before the EEOC expressing concerns about Supreme Court decisions in the past decade and a half that have severed the ADEA from its ties to Title VII, by relying on textual differences between the ADEA and Title VII, rather than their shared purposes and prohibitions.[207] The most significant ADEA case that experts point to that divorces the ADEA from Title VII precedent is Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.[208] Gross held that older workers could no longer use the motivating factor framework derived from the same Title VII prohibition[209] shared by the ADEA to prove unlawful age discrimination. Instead, the Supreme Court reasoned that the 1991 addition to Title VII of a provision setting forth a motivating factor framework did not apply to the ADEA because Congress failed to similarly amend the ADEA.[210]

Thus, while individuals with race or sex discrimination claims under Title VII can prove unlawful disparate treatment under either a “but for” causation standard or a “motivating factor” standard, victims of age discrimination are limited to just one — a “but for” standard.[211] And even though the Supreme Court said in Gross that there is no heightened standard to prove age discrimination,[212] some courts have interpreted Gross as making ADEA cases harder to prove.[213] This can be extremely problematic for older women and older minorities who often bring claims under both the ADEA and Title VII.[214]

VII. Moving Forward: Preventing Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Too many older Americans continue to face discrimination based on persistent stereotypes and outdated assumptions about age and work. Age discrimination is legally wrong and has been since the ADEA took effect five decades ago. But it remains too common and too accepted in today’s workplace. While attitudes about older workers, their abilities, and age discrimination have improved somewhat over the past 50 years, much more can and should be done to make age discrimination less prevalent and less accepted.

First and foremost, workplace culture determines whether workers are valued without regard to age or whether they are devalued based on age.[218] The leadership of an organization is obviously critical to creating and fostering a culture that is committed to a multi-generational workplace where all workers can grow and thrive.[219] Workplace cultures that extol ability and reject discriminatory stereotypes and words result in more diverse, productive and engaged workforces.

Second, employers and employees can also help prevent age discrimination in the workplace by recognizing and rejecting stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about age and older workers just as they reject such stereotypes, assumptions and remarks about someone’s sex, race, disability, national origin, or religion.

In addition, the following strategies were recommended by experts at EEOC meetings to avoid age discrimination, increase age diversity in the workplace, and value a multi-generational workforce.

A. Increasing the Age Diversity of the Workforce

Based on research studies and their work with employers, experts recommend several strategies that can prevent biases from entering into recruitment, hiring, and human resource practices. One significant but often overlooked strategy is to include age in diversity and inclusion programs and efforts. A study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that 64 percent of firms surveyed in its 2015 Annual Global CEO survey had diversity & inclusion strategies, but only 8 percent of those included age.[220] Yet, the benefits of doing so appear to have strong positive outcomes for both employers and employees.

An initial assessment of an organization’s culture, practices, and policies may reveal outdated assumptions about older workers that could taint objective decisionmaking and limit opportunities. The Center on Aging & Work at Boston College, along with AARP, has developed an assessment tool that evaluates organizational strengths and weaknesses in attracting, managing, and retaining a multigenerational workforce.[224]

B. Recruitment and Hiring Strategies

With low unemployment and growing shortages of skilled, qualified workers, hiring older workers can help employers fill what has become known as the “skills gap” — the lack of trained or experienced workers for higher-skilled jobs. Their employment also furthers economic and social policies that encourage continued work to strengthen personal financial well-being and our economy.[225]

Recruitment practices can avoid age bias by seeking workers of all ages and not limiting qualifications based on age or years of experience. Over 94 percent of working Americans visit companies’ social media pages when searching for a job.[226] Websites and social media that include age-diverse photos, graphics, and content demonstrate a commitment to attracting a multi-generational workforce. Applications, whether online or paper, should not ask date of birth or other age-related questions, just as they should not ask an applicant to identify her race or sex.

Training recruiters and interviewers to avoid ageist assumptions and even common perceptions about older workers is critical. For example, the assumption that hiring a younger worker is less expensive and a better return on investment than hiring an older worker is outdated and flawed. Contrary to common perception, older workers do not cost significantly more than younger workers, as structural changes in compensation and benefits have created a more age-neutral distribution of labor costs.[227] And the presumed investment based on the assumption that the younger worker will be with the employer longer is less likely these days. Millennials are leaving their employers, on average, after three years, whereas older workers, on average, provide employers with more stability, longer tenures, and ultimately a greater return on investment.[228]

Experts also recommend an assessment of interviewing strategies to avoid age bias, as studies and experience show that interviewers tend to favor job candidates who remind them of themselves.[229] An age-diverse interview panel for prospective employees may be viewed more positively by candidates and may be less vulnerable to implicit bias. Training interviewers as to how to frame age-neutral questions and using a standard or structured process can help avoid age bias throughout the interview process.[230]

C. Retention Strategies

Effective retention strategies decrease unexpected turnover costs and loss of institutional knowledge, and increase engagement and productivity. Age is positively correlated with employee engagement, as workers age 50 and older have the highest levels of engagement in the workplace.[231] And high employee engagement increases employee productivity.[232]

Experts recommend strategies to provide career counseling, training and development opportunities to workers at all ages and at all stages of their careers. Mixed-age and reverse-age mentoring can increase worker productivity and satisfaction.[233] Workers of all ages value flexible work options that can provide work/life balance at various times in their careers.[234]

Conclusion

The ADEA has helped to bring equality and fairness to the workplace for older workers. But age discrimination persists based on outdated and unfounded assumptions about older workers, aging and discrimination. No one should be denied a job based on stereotypes and it’s time to put these outdated assumptions to rest. Ability, experience and commitment matter, not age. To achieve the promise of the ADEA, it’s time to recognize the value of age diversity in the workplace and the benefits of a multi-generational workforce.

[2] Pub. L. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56 (1963) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)).

[10] “If more skilled workers over 60 stayed in the workforce, it would make a significant impact on reducing the skilled worker shortage in the United States.” Written Testimony of John Challenger, CEO, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., The ADEA 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017).

[11] H.R. 10144 sought to prohibit “arbitrary employment discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry or age.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-1370, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 2155 (1962).

[12] The amendment to add a prohibition of age discrimination to Title VII failed in the House by a vote of 123 to 94. 110 chúng tôi 2596-99 (1964).The Senate rejected a similar amendmentby a vote of 63 to 28. 110 chúng tôi 9911-13 (1964). Some ADEA historians claim that the move to add age discrimination to TitleVII was intended to defeat passage, like the move to add sex discrimination. See Daniel P. O’Meara, Protecting The Growing Numbers of Older Workers: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act 11 (1989); Disparate Impact Analysis and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 64 Minn. L. Rev. 1038, 1053 (1984); Alfred W. Blumrosen, Interpreting the ADEA: Intent or Impact, Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Compliance and Litigation Manual for Lawyers and Personnel Practitioners, 106-15 (1982). Historians also disagree on the reasons Congress added sex to Title VII. J. Freeman, How Sex Got into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as A Maker of Public Policy, 9 Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 163-184 (1991); M.E. Gold, A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for The Issue of Comparable Worth, 19 Duquesne Law Rev. 453-477 (1980).

[13] Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, § 715, 78 Stat. 265 (1964).

[29] See Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 , S. Rep. No. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 13-14 (1967) (statement of Sen. Javits). In the House, John H. Dent and Carl D. Perkins were the leading proponents of the ADEA.

[30] The House approved H.R. 13054 on December 4, 1967 by a vote of 344 to 13. 113 Cong. Rec. 34752 (Dec. 4, 1967). By unanimous consent, the Senate approved amendments to S.830 from the House bill. 113 Cong. Rec. 35055-57 (Dec. 5, 1967). The House, by unanimous consent, concurred on December 6, 1967. 113 Cong. Rec. 35132 (Dec. 6, 1967). President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill on December 15, 1967. (113 Cong. Rec. 37125 (Dec. 15, 1967). Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 607 (1967).

[32] As Senator Yarborough, one of the leading sponsors of the ADEA, explained:

a great deal of the problem stems from ignorance: there is simply a widespread irrational belief that once men and women are past a certain age they are no longer capable of performing even some of the most routine jobs.

113 Cong. Rec. 31254 (1967); See Improving the Age Discrimination Law, supra note 5, at III.

[36] “[T]the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII.” Lorillard, 434 U.S. at 584. The Court cited to both prohibitions in Title VII § 703(a)(1) and (2), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1), (2), in comparing the almost identical language in the ADEA’s prohibitions §§4(a)(1), (2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), (2). Id. at n. 12.

[39] “The prohibitions in this Act shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty years of age but less than sixty-five years of age.” Pub. L. No. 90-202, § 12 (1967).

[42] The Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1974, § 28(a)(4), expanded the ADEA’s definition of “employer” at § 630(b) to include state and local governments of any size and added another new provision, § 633a, to protect federal employees age 40 to 70. Pub. L. No. 93-259, 88 Stat. 74-76 (1974). In contrast, Title VII was amended in 1972 to cover state and local government employers that employ fifteen or more individuals through an addition to the definition of “persons” covered by the Act. Pub. L. No. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (1972).

[43] “The committee believes that as a matter of basic civil rights people should be treated in employment based on their individual ability to perform a job rather than based on stereotypes about race, sex, or age.” S. REP. 95-493, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 1977, at 3; 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 504, 1977 WL 9644.

Scientific research now indicates that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job….

… A person with the ability and desire to work should not be denied that opportunity solely because of age. The Act’s current age limitation unfairly assumes that age alone provides an accurate measure of an individual’s ability to perform work. In fact, the evidence clearly establishes the continued productivity of workers who are 65 years of age and older.

… the arguments for retaining existing mandatory retirement policies are largely based on misconceptions rather than a careful analysis of the facts.

See also Mandatory Retirement: The Social and Human Cost of Enforced Idleness,H.R. Rep. Select Comm. On Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. VII (1977); The Next Steps in Combating Age Discrimination in Employment: With Special Reference to Mandatory Retirement Policy, A Working Paper, S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 1 (1977).

The House and Senate Reports for the 1986 ADEA Amendments cited to a 1985 study by psychologists David Waldman and Bruce Avolio on the relationship between age and performance. The study “found that contrary to popular belief, older workers can be just as productive as their younger counterparts” and found little support for the belief that job performance declines with age. Eliminating Mandatory Retirement, A Report by The Chairman of The Subcomm. on Health and Long-Term Care of The Select Comm. on Aging , H.R. Rep. No. 99-561, at 107-08 (2d Sess. 1986); Working Americans: Equality at Any Age: Hearing Before the S. Spec. Comm. on Aging,99th Cong. (1986).

[45] Pub. L. No. 95-256, § 12(a), 92 Stat. 189 (1978).

[54] See 112 Cong. Rec. 20823 (1966) (statement of Sen. Javits); 113 Cong. Rec. 7076 (1967) (statements of Sen. Javits); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 , S. Rep. No. 723, at 13-14 (1st Sess. 1967) (statements of Sen. Javits) (opposing Administration’s bill which would create a “wholly unnecessary new bureaucracy” with DOL).

[55] See Hearings on S. 830, S. 788 Before the Subcomm. on Labor of the S. Comm. on Labor and Pub. Welfare, 90th Cong. 24, 29, 396 (1967) (statements of Sen. Javits and Sen. Smathers); Age Discrimination in Employment – Proposed Amendments to S.830 Administration Bill, Before the S. Subcomm. On Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 113 Cong. Rec. 7076 (1967) (statement of Sen. Jacob Javits) (“The EEOC is already years behind in disposing of its docket.”); Craig Robert Senn, Ending Discriminatory Damages, 64 Ala. L. Rev. 187, 203 (2012) (summarizing legislators’ concerns that the EEOC was under-resourced to handle enforcement of the ADEA, given lengthy EEOC charge backlog and “the possibility that age discrimination enforcement would be neglected in favor of other forms of discrimination.”).

[56] The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) enforced the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

“There is medical evidence, for example, to support the contention that such is generally not the case. In many instances, an individual at age 60 may be physically capable of performing heavy-lifting on a job, whereas another individual of age 30 may be physically incapable of doing so.”

Id.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: 1979 To 1982, An Information Paper Prepared by the Staff of the S. Spec. Comm. on Aging[59] DOL counted charges based on the number of respondents, while the EEOC counts charges by the numbers of charging parties. Thus, a layoff of 30 employees by a single employer on which ADEA charges have been filed would be counted as one charge by DOL and 30 charges by the EEOC. See S. Spec. Comm. on Aging,, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 98-691 at 3 (1982).

[62] Message of the President, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 19807, 92 Stat. 3781 (May 9, 1978).

[65] “[T]he Commission has devoted substantially more to its ADEA program than the $3.5 million budget and 119 positions transferred from Labor. Indeed, the Commission transferred Title VII positions into the age enforcement program during both fiscal years 1980 and 1981. The current budgetary allocation for the ADEA program is 128 positions and approximately $14 million.” S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: 1979 To 1982 , supra note 59, at 3.

[69] See Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-283, 102 Stat. 78 (1988). Congress reinstated the rights of charging parties to file lawsuits who had lost that right when the EEOC failed to process ADEA charges within the two or three-year statute of limitation. The ADCAA extended the time for filing lawsuits for an additional 540 days (18 months). Congress authorized a second extension of the ADEA statute of limitations in 1990 when the EEOC again failed to timely process ADEA charges. See also, Age Discrimination Claims Assistance Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-504, 104 Stat. 1298 (1990) (providing charging parties an additional 450 days in which to file their own private ADEA lawsuits, while permitting the EEOC to process the backlog of age discrimination charges).

[72] In EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the 1974 extension of the ADEA to state governments as employers was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and rejected a Tenth Amendment challenge to the ADEA. However, in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 78-79 (2000), the Court held that the ADEA did not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for monetary relief by individuals. Kimel explicitly limits its holding to suits by private individuals and reaffirmed the holding in EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), that state and local government employers are covered by the ADEA. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 91 (“We hold only that, in the ADEA, Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity against suits by private individuals.”)

[77] See EEOC v. Seasons 52, No. 15-CV-20561-JAL (S.D. Fla. 2018) (consent decree settling claims for failure to hire based on age); Texas Roadhouse,

[78] 29 U.S.C. § 628.

[79] The regulations explaining the waiver requirements of the OWBPA were the product of a negotiated rulemaking, the first time the EEOC had used such a procedure that brought experts together to develop regulations for consideration by the Agency. Waivers of Rights and Claims Under the ADEA,63 Fed. Reg. 30628 (June 5, 1998) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22).

[80] Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare and Sate Health Benefits, 72 Fed. Reg. 72945 (Dec. 2007) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625.32).

[81] Coverage Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 72 Fed. Reg. 36875 (Jul. 2007).

[82] Differentiations Based on Reasonable Factors Other Than Age, 77 Fed. Reg. 19095 (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1625).

[88] Mitra Toossi, Dep’t of Lab., Bureau of Lab. Stat., A Century of Change: The U.S. Labor Force, 1950 – 2050, Table 5, Civilian Labor Force by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1950 – 2000 and Projected, 2010 – 2050, Monthly Lab. Rev. 15 (2002). See also Written Statement of Patrick Button, Assistant Professor Dep’t of Econ., Tulane U., The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017) (“The United States is experiencing an aging population that is increasingly trying to work longer….”).

[90] Patrick Purcell, Cong. Research Serv., Older Workers: Employment and Retirement Trends (2007).

[96] From 2008 to 2010, more than three out of every four adults age 65 and over rated their health as good, very good, or excellent. Fed. Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Stat. , Older Americans 2012: Key Indicators of Well-Being (2012).

[97] The qualifying age for full Social Security retirement benefits has been increasing since 2000. In 2020, eligibility for full Social Security retirement benefits will be 67 years of age. CDC, Older Employees in the Workplace, Issue Brief No. 1 (2012) (citing Patrick Purcell, Congressional Research Service, Older Workers: Employment and Retirement Trends (2009)).

[103] A 2017 Gallup survey reported “there has been a seismic shift since 1995 in the age at which non-retirees believe they will retire. In two polls conducted that year, an average of 14% said they expected to retire after 65 and 49% before 65. These percentages have flipped in the last two decades, as the age to start collecting Social Security has risen to 67 and more Americans feel a financial need to stay in the workforce.” Gallup, Most U.S. Employed Adults Plan to Work Past Retirement Age (2017).

[107] Workers’ expectations regarding when and how they will retire represent a dramatic change from long-held societal notions about fully retiring at age 65. Although the numbers vary based on who was surveyed and the date of the survey, nearly 3 out of 4 workers plan to work past age 65. Gallup, Most U.S. Employed Adults Plan to Work Past Retirement Age (2017). This increase is five times the 14 percent who said this in 1995. Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup, Americans Settling on Older Retirement Age (2015). In the same study, 63 percent plan to work part-time and 11 percent say they will work full-time. Id.Thirteen percent of older workers surveyed say they do not plan to retire at all. Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, 17th Annual Retirement Survey, 16, 258-60 (2016).

[119] AARP, Staying Ahead of the Curve – The Career and Work Study (2013) (Sample of 1502 workers ages 45-74; defining blue collar as skilled and semi-skilled labor, unskilled labor, and service and protective occupations; white collar as technician/minor administrative, clerical, and sales; and executive/professional as executive/admin/mgmt. jobs, top talent/major or less professional jobs, small business owners, and farmers.)

[120] David Baer, Older Workers: More Likely to Work Part Time, AARP Pub. Pol’y Inst. (Feb. 2015). Some older workers have had to settle for part-time jobs because they could not obtain full-time employment. Id.

[125] Templin, 89 Or. L. Rev. at 1238; Johnson et al., Employment at Older Ages and the Changing Nature of Work at 11, 14.

[128]Barbara F. Reskin, The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination, 29 Contemporary Soc. 319, 320 (Vol. 2 March 2000) (“much discrimination stems from normal cognitive processes” of “stereotyping, attribution bias, and evaluation bias” which “introduce sex, race, and ethnic biases into our perceptions, interpretations, recollections, and evaluations of others.”).

[132] “Scientific research now indicates that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job.” Amending the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1977, S. Rep. 95-493, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 2-4 (1977). See Schaie, The Longitudinal Study: A 21-year Exploration of Psychometric Intelligence in Adulthood,” in Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological Development, 33 (K. W. Schaie, ed. 1983) (studies show no decline in average intelligence at until age 80); McEvoy & Cascio, Cumulative Evidence of the Relationship between Employee Age and Job Performance, 74 J. of Appl. Psych. 11 (1989) (finding age bears no relationship to employee performance); (studies show no decline in average intelligence at least until age 80); Staudinger, Cornelius & Baltes, The Aging of Intelligence: Potential and Limits, 503 The Annals, 43, 45-46 (1989)(“Persons of the same chronological age are not identical as to their mental status. There are 70-year-olds who function like 30-year-olds and vice versa.”); Diane B. Howelson, Cognitive Skills and the Aging Brain: What to Expect, Cerebrum (Dec. 1, 2015).

[138] Glen P. Kenny, Herbert Groeller, Ryan McGinn, and Andreas D. Flouris, Age, Human Performance, and Physical Employment Standards, 41 Applied Physiology, nutrition, and Metabolism (2016) (“the extent of the decline in physical functioning, and therefore the risk of work-related injuries or illness, is dependent on a myriad of individual factors including lifestyle, level of physical activity and fitness, and general health.”)

[143] See Bruno Bettelheim & Morris Janowitz, Soc. Change and Prejudice at 11 (1964). Isis H. Settles, Nicole T. Buchanan, & Stevie C. Y. Yap, Race discrimination in the workplace, at 8, Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination (M. A. Paludi, C. A. Paludi Jr., & E. DeSouza Eds., Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers 2010) (“discrimination – negative behaviors enacted toward members of a particular group – typically stem from prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes”); L. Duke, “White’s Racial Stereotypes Persist: Most Retain Negative Beliefs About Minorities, Survey Finds,” Washington Post (Jan. 9, 1991), p. A1.

[147] In AARP’s 2017 study of age discrimination, 61 percent of those age 45 and older reported seeing or experiencing age discrimination. Perron, supra note 9. This is a slight decrease from the 64.5% reporting personal experience with age discrimination in AARP’s 2013 study. See AARP, Staying Ahead of the Curve 2013: AARP Multicultural Work and Career Study Perceptions of Age Discrimination in the Workplace – Ages 45-74 (2013 survey of 1,500 workers age 45-74 reported that sixty four percent said they had seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace).

[151] In AARP’s 2017 survey, 64 percent of women and 59 percent of men say they have seen or experienced age discrimination. While AARP’s 2013 survey similarly found more women (72 percent) than men (57 percent) responded that older workers face age discrimination, the 2017 responses show a decline in the perception of age discrimination for women, but an increase in that perception for men.

[156] See The Next Steps in Combating Age Discrimination in Employment: With Special Reference to Mandatory Retirement Policy, A Working Paper, S. Spec. Comm. on Aging, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 7 (1977).

[158] 18th Ann. Rep. of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10 (Sept. 4, 1984).

[160] In 1990, 14 percent of ADEA charges were filed by African Americans, which nearly doubled to 27 percent in 2017.

[161] In 1990, 1 percent of ADEA charges were filed by Asians, which tripled to 3 percent in 2017.

[162] “[N]umerous negative stereotypes about older workers still exist that often prevent or have a negative impact on employment opportunities for older people.” See Written Testimony of Dr. Sara J. Czaja, Director, CREATE (Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement), and Director of the Center on Aging at the University of Miami, The ADEA @ 50 — More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017). “Several studies have found evidence of biases against older adults during recruitment and hiring.” See Written Testimony of Jacquelyn B. James, supra note 102. See also Written Statement of Michael Campion, Professor, Purdue University, Age Discrimination in the 21st Century — Barriers to the Employment of Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009).

[167] CAREEREALISM Releases 2015 Age Discrimination Survey Results, supra note 149; Perron, supra note 9. Yet few older workers file formal complaints of hiring discrimination, as age discrimination is often difficult to detect and to prove. See Perron, supra note 9 (only 3 percent formally complain); Written Testimony of Joseph Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Public Input into the Development of EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012) (hiring discrimination is hard to detect).

[170] Neumark, David, Ian Burn, and Patrick Button, Is It Harder for Older Workers to Find Jobs? New and Improved Evidence from a Field Experiment (NBER, Working Paper No. 21669, 2015) cited in Written Testimony of Patrick Button, supra note 88; ” Is there age discrimination in hiring?” BLS Monthly Labor Review (April 2017); ” Age Discrimination and the Hiring of Older Workers” (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter, no. 2017-06, February 27, 2017).

[177] See EEOC v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corr., 648 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that an age “cliff” that foreclosed any retirement incentive to individuals once they reached age 55 was inconsistent with the purposes of the ADEA.); Jankovitz v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 421 F.3d 649, 653 (8th Cir. 2005) (early retirement incentive plan that made employees age 65 or older ineligible for benefits was facially discriminatory). See also Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, Take the Money and Run or It’s Too Late Baby: Early Retirement Incentives and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 Univ. of Memphis L.R. 783 (1999) (collecting cases).

[178] See EEOC v. Baltimore Cty., 747 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (requirement that older new-hires make larger pension contributions than younger new-hires for the same benefits violated ADEA). In a series of suits against New York municipal volunteer fire departments, EEOC challenged the denial of service credit for volunteer firefighters who worked past the entitlement age for retiremen t benefits. EEOC v. Bayville Fire Co., No. 07-cv-4472 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 8, 2010); EEOC v. Brentwood Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3298 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Mar. 14, 2011); EEOC v. Village of Minneola, No. 08-cv-973 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Jan. 20, 2010); EEOC v. Selden Fire Dist., No. 08-cv-3974 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 16, 2010); EEOC v. Eaton’s Neck Fire Dist., No. 08-cv-5089 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Oct. 30, 2009); EEOC v. Oyster Bay Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3297 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Sep. 16, 2011); EEOC v. Amityville Fire Dep’t, No. 09-cv-3742 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Mar. 15, 2011); EEOC v. Village of N. Syracuse, No. 12-cv-1465 (N.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Apr. 3, 2013). See also Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135, 143 (2008); Arnett v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999) (injunction against CalPERS and some 1500 local agencies from enforcing a 1980 statue that reduced disability pension benefits of older police officers and firefighters from 50 percent of final compensation to as little as 13 percent); AARP v. Farmers Grp. Inc., 943 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming summary judgment and award of liquidated damages to employees who continued working past age 65 but were denied profit sharing and pension contributions).

[179] 492 U.S. 158 (1989). The Betts decision caused the dismissal of many pending ADEA benefits cases that had been brought by the EEOC and private litigants. See Age Discrimination in Employee Benefit Plans: The Impact of the Betts Decision: Joint Hearing Before the Select Comm. on Aging and the Subcomms. on Employment Opportunities and Labor-Management Relations of the H. Comm. on Education and Labor, 101 Cong. (1989) (statement of Charles A. Shanor, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the EEOC had 30 cases pending in trial and appellate courts, half of which would require dismissal due to the Betts decision; statement of Robert Laufman, Attorney at Law, Laufman, Rauh, and Gerhardstein) reprinted in 2 EEOC legislative history of the older workers benefit protection act of 1990 at 743, 732 (1991).

[180] Pub. L. No. 101-433, 104 Stat. 978.

[181] The OWBPA codified the specific language of the equal benefit or equal cost rule from the EEOC’s regulations, 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B)(i) and 29 C.F.R. § 1625.10, and provided narrow exceptions for early retirement incentives and the coordination of severance benefits.

[183] 29 C.F.R. § 1625.32 (2003). The exemption was upheld in a lawsuit challenging it. AARP v. EEOC, 489 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2007).

[194] Research on the success rate of ADEA plaintiffs prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL shows higher rates of success in the 1980s and 1990s than more recent decades. See Eglit, supra note 164. (analysis of ADEA cases decided in 1996 shows older workers prevailed in 29 percent of substantive ADEA cases at the appellate level and 25 percent at the district court level; and had a 90 percent win rate in jury trials. Id. at 655 (recognizing that the strongest cases survive summary judgment, but often settle prior to trial). Another study of data collected by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for 1998-2001, ADEA plaintiffs won 21 percent of bench trials while the win rate for bench trials in employment discrimination cases overall was 26 percent. Kohrman & Hayes, Employers Who Cry “RIF” and the Courts That Believe Them, supra note 8, at 153.

[195] 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999).

[201] Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, chúng tôi No. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 2 (1967); chúng tôi No. 805, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 2 (1967).

[202] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-40 (1903); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (1965); 19 Del. Code § 711 (1960); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2 (1965); La. Rev. Stat. § 23:321 (1934), Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B (1937) (amended in 1950); N.J. Stat. § 10:5-12; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (1958); Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02 (1961); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030 (through Leg. Sess. 2011); 43 Pa. Stat. § 955 (1956); Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.180 (1961); Wis. Stat. §§ 111.321-322 (1959); P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (1960).

[203] Arkansas’ and Mississippi’s laws only apply to state government employees. Six states have stand-alone age discrimination laws separate from other employment discrimination laws (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska).

[204] See Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc., 671 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2012) (“There is just one Massachusetts statute that outlaws both age and gender discrimination (Chapter 151B)) (holding Gross does not apply to state law claim); Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151, 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (holding the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits age and other protected classes and declined to follow Grossin considering the proper standard of causation under FEHA); Wagner v. Board of Trustees for Connecticut State University, 2012 WL 668544 (Superior Ct. 2012) (“Given the legislature’s decision to include multiple types of unlawful employment discrimination within a single statutory provision without setting out distinctive standards for the different types, the logical conclusion is that it intended that the same standard of proof be applied to all the types of discrimination.”).

[207] Written Testimony of Michael Foreman, Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law, Impact of Economy on Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2010); Written Testimony of R. Scott Oswald, Principal, The Employment Law Group, Impact of Economy on Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2010); Written Statement of Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, President Workplace Fairness, Age Discrimination in the 21st Century — Barriers to the Employment of Older Workers, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009). See Appendix B for a complete list of ADEA Supreme Court decisions, and at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/adea50th/supreme-court.cfm.

[208] 557 U.S. 167, 174 (2009).

[211] Several experts have examined the flaws they see in the Gross decision and the harm it has caused. See Mark R. Deethard, Life After Gross: Creating A New Center for Disparate Treatment Proof Structures, 72 La. L. Rev. 178 (2011); Michael Foreman, Gross v. FBL Financial Services – Oh So Gross! 40 U. Mem. L. Rev. 681 (2010); David Sherwyn & Michael Heisse, The Gross Beast of Burden of Proof: Experimental Evidence on How the Burden of Proof Influences Employment Discrimination Case Outcomes, 42 Ariz. St. L. J. 901 (2010).

[213] See Sherwyn, supra note 211; Written Testimony of Michael Foreman, supra note 207; Written Testimony of R. Scott Oswald, supra note 207. The retrial of Mr. Gross’ case demonstrates the difficulties resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision. Mr. Gross prevailed in his first jury trial when the jury was given a motivating factor instruction. In the second trial when the jury considered the exact same evidence but was instructed to apply a “but for” standard of causation rather than the motivating factor standard, the jury ruled against Mr. Gross — that he had not proven unlawful discrimination under the ADEA. Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 3498 Fed.Appx. 971, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2012).

[218] “Workplace culture has the greatest impact in allowing harassment to flourish, or conversely, in preventing harassment.” Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, Report of Co-Chairs, Chai R. Feldblum & Victoria A. Lipnic, at v, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (June 2016). Culture is especially important with respect to age discrimination that often arises from an unconscious application or stereotyped notion of ability. See Rebecca Hanner White & Linda Hamilton Krieger, Whose Motive Matters? Discriminating in Multi-Actor Employment Decision-Making, 61 La. L. Rev. 495, 508-09 (2001).

[225] In an extensive study of the economic effects of the aging population, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recommended encouraging people to work longer and to postpone retirement for their own financial security and for the benefit to the economy of prolonged employment. See Aging and the Macroeconomy: Long-Term Implications of an Older Population, Comm. on the Long‐Run Macro‐Econ. Effects of the Aging U.S. Population Study Requested by U.S. Cong.; funded by U.S. Treasury and Nat’l Inst. on Aging(2012).

[226] iCIMS, The Modern Job Seeker Report (2017).

[229] John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a firm specializing in recruitment and placement, testified before the EEOC that “[r]ecruiting and talent management gatekeepers in many companies’ staffing departments may not identify with or promote older applicants. If the initial interviewer cannot picture the older job seeker ‘fitting in,’ he or she will likely pass that applicant over for the position.” Written Testimony of John Challenger supra note 10. Challenger recommended educating recruitment and talent managers on the benefits of employing older workers, and providing financial incentives to improve age-diverse recruitment and hiring. Id. See also Written Testimony of Jacquelyn B. James, supra note 102.

[231] See Written Testimony of Laurie A. McCann, AARP Foundation Litigation, Promoting Diverse and Inclusive Workplaces in the Tech Sector, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n. 19 (2016).

[234] See Written Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem, supra note 220 (“[O]ffering nontraditional scheduling options for employees not only improves work-life balance for the employees, but it also allows organizations to recruit and retain motivated workers who may not be able or willing to work a traditional nine-to-five schedule.”)

Download Age Of Z On Pc With Memu / 2023

Updated

2021-01-08

Current Version

1.2.50

Offered By

Features of Age of Z on PC

With all your passion for playing Age of Z, you hands are not supposed to be limited on a tiny screen of your phone. Play like a pro and get full control of your game with keyboard and mouse. MEmu offers you all the things that you are expecting. Download and play Age of Z on PC. Play as long as you want, no more limitations of battery, mobile data and disturbing calls. The brand new MEmu 7 is the best choice of playing Age of Z on PC. Prepared with our expertise, the exquisite preset keymapping system makes Age of Z a real PC game. Coded with our absorption, the multi-instance manager makes playing 2 or more accounts on the same device possible. And the most important, our exclusive emulation engine can release full potential of your PC, make everything smooth. We care not only how you play, but also the whole process of enjoying the happiness of gaming.

Screenshots & Video of Age of Z PC

Download Age of Z on PC with MEmu Android Emulator. Enjoy playing on big screen. Kill zombies, form alliances, and lead human civilization back from the brink of doom in this zombie strategy MMO!

Game Info

Kill zombies, form alliances, and lead human civilization back from the brink of doom in this zombie strategy MMO!The zombie apocalypse threw humanity into the dark ages. Now, YOU are the light in the darkness. SURVIVE by raising massive armies of machines, explosives, and gritty human soldiers. REVIVE civilization by slaying the zombie hoards, rebuilding your city, rescuing refugees, and bringing new global prosperity. THRIVE by forming alliances with other commanders from around the world, crushing your rivals, and seizing the Capital so YOU may lead the new age of humanity!Because in Age of Z Origins, the zombies may be a danger… but human schemers and backstabbers are the real threat! SURVIVE– Recruit, innovate, and slay! Build massive armies of human grunts, killer machine guns, and high-tech laser cannons.– Heroes win the day! Recruit unique characters to lead your army, including a sexy international spy, a mad scientist, an honorable sheriff, and more!– Fight the many faces of death! Mutant Zombies, Zombie Bears, Death Mothers and other gruesome dead creatures await your challenge.– REAL TOPOGRAPHY! You must march and expand strategically up, down, and around a REAL 3D map of lakes and mountains! The right route is the difference between life and death!REVIVE– Clear the zombies hoards! Reclaim your city block by block, rebuilding hospitals, housing, and farmlands alongside tech and and weapon centers! – Scavenge for loot and rescue Refugees to increase Prosperity and keep your city growing!– Watch the World Map change before your very eyes! You’ll unlock new Prosperity Phases for a more developed world, bigger bonuses, and new gameplay!THRIVE– Speed, crush, and DOMINATE! Your alliance will rule the map with real-time battles of hundreds of players marching and converging as one!– Form HUGE alliances with real-world players around the world, through diplomacy or daggers and deceit. The zombie threat is just the beginning!– Rage massive clan wars for land, resources, and tech. Only ONE alliance can claim the capital and elect the President!Do you have what it takes, Commander? The war for LIFE begins now!Connect with us on Facebook/Twitter:https://facebook.com/AgeOfZ/https://twitter.com/AgeofZOrigins

How to Download Age of Z on PC

1. Download MEmu installer and finish the setup

2. Start MEmu then open Google Play on the desktop

3. Search Age of Z in Google Play

Install

4. Download and Install Age of Z

6. Enjoy playing Age of Z on PC with MEmu

Why Use MEmu for Age of Z

MEmu Play is the best Android emulator and 100 million people already enjoy its superb Android gaming experience. The MEmu virtualization technology empowers you to play thousands of Android games smoothly on your PC, even the most graphic-intensive ones.

Bigger screen with better graphics; Long duration, without limitation of battery or mobile data.

Full Keymapping support for precise control of keyboard and mouse or gamepad.

Multiple game accounts or tasks on single PC at one time with Multi-Instance manager.

Ready to Play?

More From Camel Games Limited

Toys That Begin With The Letter K Grouped By Age / 2023

Find more toys for the rest of the alphabet:

20 Toys that Begin with the Letter K for Ages 2-5

If your kiddo has a letter theme at their school this week or you are teaching them about certain letters, and the letter happens to be K, this list is for you. It has so many toys that begin with the letter K. From kites, to keyboards, to keys, and more. Check them all out below.

Kite Shaped Like an Octopus

Children of all ages can enjoy this kite shaped like an octopus as it flies through the sky.

Keyboard Playmat

This large 71″ keyboard playmat will have your kiddo making music for hours. They can dance, walk, stomp, jump, and more on the playmat to create musical notes.

Keychain Flashlight

While this “toy” requires more supervision than some, a keychain flashlight can help your kiddo overcome fear of darkness or just have fun in the dark in general.

Kids Musical Instruments

Ready for the house to be full of music? This kids musical instruments set is a great choice!

Kick Scooter with Removable Seat

Whether they want to sit and ride, or stand and ride, the kick scooter with removable seat fits their desires.

Kick & Learn Soccer Ball

What could possibly be better than learning while you kick a soccer ball around? After all, play is the best way to learn!

Keywind Musical Stuffed Dog

Yet another musical toy that starts with the letter K, this keywind musical stuffed dog can keep them company when they need it.

Kiss Fish Soother

Baby or toddler, either way sometimes they need a little extra soothing, and that is where this kiss fish soother comes in handy.

Kitchen Set Compact Toy

This compact kitchen set will have your kiddo baking and cooking up a storm!

Kids Piano

If the keyboard playmat doesn’t fit your needs, then your kiddo can enjoy playing this kids piano instead.

Keys to the Kingdom Toy Keys

Your little prince or princess would love to have keys to the kingdom!

Kissing Lips Funky Retro Party Shades

Oooh, how fun are these kissing lips funky retro party shades? For dress-up, parties, or just being silly, these sunglasses will be fun for them to wear.

Kate and Mim Mim Magic Twirl Talking Plush Toy

The Kate and Mim Mim magic twirl talking plush toy can also keep them company, because it can talk to them.

Kidoozie Shape N Lock Barn

Help them learn and sort shapes with the Kidoozie shape n lock barn.

Kids Bowling Set

They will spend hours trying to knock over all of the bowling pins, as long as they don’t get distracted before it happens.

Kennedy Children Wooden Puzzle Toy Dinosaur

Puzzles are such a great way for young children to learn, and even fun for adults too. Help your child learn and have fun with the Kennedy children wooden dinosaur puzzle.

Know-it-All Educational Nature Books

Know-it-all may have a negative connotation, but learning about nature is always fun and such a great idea.

Kids Binocular Set

You can even pair this kids binocular set with the nature books above so that they can study animals without getting too close!

Kate Camden Doll

A kid can never have too many dolls!

Kickity Baby Toy

This kickity baby toy will allow your toddler to explore how things work, such as cause and effect.

As I discovered more and more toys that began with the letter K, I became aware of how many amazing and exciting toys there were!

Toys that Begin with the Letter K Ages 6-8

Keys & Cars Wooden Rescue Vehicle & Garage Toy

This keys & cars wooden rescue vehicle and garage toy will keep any kid who is interested in cars entertained for awhile.

Kick Scooter

Kick scooters are great for playing on their own, or with their friends who also have a scooter or bike. When I was a kid, I would pretend my scooter was a dog sled and I had dogs pulling me through the neighborhood, it is one of my fondest memories.

Kid Digger Toy Backhoe

They can use this kid digger toy backhoe in the backyard, at the beach, in a sandbox, or wherever else it will work. It is even more fun because they can actually sit on it and feel like they are driving a backhoe or excavator.

Kendama Toy

They can practice hand-eye coordination, agility, balance, and more with their very own Kendama toy.

Kickback Soccer Goal and Pitch Back

Now they can play soccer anywhere with this kickback soccer goal and pitch back.

Key Education Sentence Building

Help them learn key education sentence building with this set of cards.

Kion Lion Guard Plush

Kion is a new character, but there are also Kiara and Kovu too.

Kingdom Hearts Sora Figure

This Kingdom Hearts Sora figure is a great K toy choice if your kid is into the game.

KISS Buildable Figures

Whether you are into KISS, or they are, they can have a ton of fun with their very own KISS buildable figures.

Kitchen Toy Set

A kitchen toy set is a classic toy for all ages and has the potential to help them learn how to cook and prepare food as well.

King Crown

Your kid needs a king crown to add to their costume collection, or for other pretend play too.

Kids Bowling Set

Kids bowling sets are super fun to play in the hall at home, especially on rainy days.

Knot-A-Quilt Pattern Kit

They can learn more about knitting with this Knot-a-Quilt pattern kit.

Kung Fu Panda Solar Bobble Head Toy

Kids Mermaid Sequin Purse

For dress up, or when going somewhere, a kids mermaid sequin purse will make the best accessory.

Knuckles Sonic the Hedgehog Action Figure

Knuckles from Sonic the Hedgehog action figure can bring hours of fun and action into their lives.

Knot Ball Pillow Plush

How awesome would this knot ball pillow plush look in their room?

Kung Fu Panda Po Plush

A Kung Fu Panda Po plush can keep them company wherever they go.

KidKraft Vintage Kitchen

This KidKraft vintage kitchen is great for the kiddo who is interested in playing house or likes to pretend cook.

Kari the Kangaroo 3-Foot Plush

Kari the Kangaroo is a giant plush who can keep them company, cuddle with them, or provide a pillow when they need it.

K is a fun letter, as you can see from this long list! Which one draws your attention the most for your child?

20 Toys that Begin with the Letter K for Ages 9-12

Kick, kite, king, and more, are all awesome letter K words, which means that there are some awesome toys that begin with the letter K. You will find many of them here, but this isn’t all! Check out this super cool list:

Kick Scooter

Buy Now Kick scooters are something that were popular nearly twenty years ago, when I was this age, and they are still great fun for kids of all ages.

Kaskey Kids Baseball Guys

Buy Now If they love baseball, they will certainly love the Kaskey Kids baseball guys set.

Kick Off Team Soccer Game by PlayGo

Buy Now The Kick Off team soccer game just might help them learn more about playing as a team, soccer, and having fun too.

Kaboom! Explosive Combustion Science Lab Kit

Buy Now Oh my, something that goes kaboom! An explosive combustion science lab kit might help them gain more passion for science, and kids can always use that! Here some gift ideas if you’re a science nerd too.

Klutz LEGO Chain Reactions Craft Kit

Buy Now With the Klutz LEGO chain reactions craft kit, they will learn more about cause and effect.

Kimicare Kitchen Toys Fun Cutting Fruits and Vegetables Playset

Buy Now You can’t have a list of toys that begin with the letter K without something kitchen-themed, right?

Kidizoom Smartwatch by Vtech

Buy Now The Kidizoom smartwatch by Vtech is great for taking pictures, learning how to tell time better, playing games, and encouraging your kid to be more active.

Klutz Make Your Own Mini Erasers

Buy Now Now your preteen child can learn how to make their own mini erasers with the Klutz craft kit at hand.

KidKraft Tasty Treats Play Food Set

Buy Now Play food isn’t just for young children, older children can have fun with it too, and this KidKraft set has a lot of tasty treats in it.

King Pig with Angry Birds Magic

Buy Now Perfect for pairing with the app and game, the King Pig helps them do even more.

Knuckles Plush

Buy Now Knuckles from Sonic is a cool guy!

King Kong of Skull Island Action Figure

Buy Now My nephews love King Kong of Skull Island, and what could be better than actually having an action figure of King Kong?

Kim Possible Costume

Buy Now Kim Possible might be an old show, but if your kid watches reruns, they will love being able to dress up as Kim.

King Kool Inflatable Lounge

Buy Now The King Kool inflatable lounge makes pool time even more fun.

Kingdom Hearts Sora Sword Pewter Keyring

If they are carrying a house key around and love Kingdom Hearts, they definitely need a Sora sword pewter keyring.

Kung Fu Panda- Tigress Figure

Buy Now Tigress from Kung Fu Panda is fierce!

Kingdom Hearts 2 Master From Yellow Sora Action Figure

Buy Now If the keyring isn’t attractive enough, then the Kingdom Hearts 2 master from yellow Sora action figure just might be.

Kung Fu Panda 2 Fierce Fighting Po Figure

Buy Now Oh, how strong and fierce Po looks!

K’NEX K-Force Dart Pack and Target

Buy Now Shooting darts is fun for your preteen, and now they can practice with a target and have more darts because, let’s face it, they get lost easily!

Knight with Crest Figure

A knight with crest figure is the perfect way to end this list. This figure has the potential to teach them to keep fighting and to stay strong, no matter what life throws their way.

As you can see, the letter K is pretty fun for preteens. So many great choices here and so many more to choose from too!

Download &Amp; Play Age Of Z On Pc &Amp; Mac (Emulator) / 2023

Strategy

Camel Games Limited

Play on PC with BlueStacks – the Android Gaming Platform, trusted by 400M+ gamers.

This Isn’t the World You Remember

Age of Z is a Strategy game developed by Camel Games Limited. BlueStacks app player is the best platform (emulator) to play this Android game on your PC or Mac for an immersive gaming experience.

Once you start playing Age of Z on Mac and PC, you enter a world where nothing is as you remember it. A great plague swept across the land. In its wake, the dead began to rise and feast upon the flesh of the living. Those that fell fighting the undead simply rose back up to join their ranks. Through all of this chaos and horror, you have managed to find a stronghold in the city. Start clearing out the city one block at a time, upgrading and rebuilding major infrastructure along the way. Recruit survivors and train them to fight the zombies at your door, but more importantly, train them to build defenses and fight the living raiders that will be crawling through your windows. In this new world, it is every survivor for themselves as we all simply struggle to live one more day.

Game Features

Enhancements

Macros

Multi Instance

Multi Instance Sync

Eco Mode

Game controls

Enhancements

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Your browser does not support the video tag.

How to Download and Play Age of Z on PC

Download and install BlueStacks on your PC

Complete Google sign-in to access the Play Store, or do it later

Look for Age of Z in the search bar at the top right corner

Complete Google sign-in (if you skipped step 2) to install Age of Z

Watch Video

With BlueStacks, you can now play any Android game or app right on your computer without the need for any extra cables or headaches. Instead, you get to install and run your favorite games and apps directly from your hard drive. This makes getting into the game easier and faster than ever before. Once you start playing Age of Z on your computer with BlueStacks, you will find a whole world of features at your fingertips that will only make your gaming time more enjoyable and rewarding. With real-time strategy games like Age of Z, the multi-instance feature is a Godsend that allows you to farm and supply your main account with ease. Open multiple instances of the same game on your computer to send supplies from farm accounts or set up multiple attacks at the same time.

Unlock your PC’s gaming potential. And yours too.

Bạn đang xem bài viết The State Of Age Discrimination And Older Workers In The U.s. 50 Years After The Age Discrimination In Employment Act (Adea) / 2023 trên website Trucbachconcert.com. Hy vọng những thông tin mà chúng tôi đã chia sẻ là hữu ích với bạn. Nếu nội dung hay, ý nghĩa bạn hãy chia sẻ với bạn bè của mình và luôn theo dõi, ủng hộ chúng tôi để cập nhật những thông tin mới nhất. Chúc bạn một ngày tốt lành!