Age Discrimination

Age discrimination can be a significant concern for workers across Scranton, Pennsylvania, who deserve fair treatment in every stage of employment. The experienced lawyers at Polishan Solfanelli understand the challenges older employees may face when dealing with workplace issues such as unfair terminations, demotions, or refusals to hire. Our team strives to protect client rights by carefully examining every facet of a claim and pursuing proper remedies under state and federal law, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). From the initial consultation through resolution, we stand by clients, offering steady guidance and support. Whether you are facing bias due to your age, or you feel overlooked for promotions because of your years of service, we work diligently to pursue rightful compensation and ensure unlawful practices are addressed. Contact us at 570-562-4520 to learn how our Scranton-based attorneys can assist you with your age-related employment concerns. We are ready.

Laws Prohibiting Age Discrimination 

Age discrimination is prohibited under both federal and Pennsylvania law. At the federal level, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects those aged 40 and older from adverse employment actions based on age. Typical coverage under the ADEA includes private sector employers with 20 or more employees, as well as labor organizations, employment agencies, and various government entities. Under its framework, employers may not use an individual’s age as a basis for making decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment.

Pennsylvania law protects older workers through the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). The PHRA extends protection to workers beginning at age 40 and covers employers that have at least four employees. This lower threshold means that smaller businesses employing fewer than 20 people but at least four must still comply with age discrimination prohibitions under state law. Several employment-related practices are addressed, including hiring, terminations, pay structures, benefits, promotions, and other employment terms or conditions. The primary goal of these regulations is to ensure that decisions affecting employees are based on legitimate qualifications and performance, rather than stereotypes or assumptions about older workers. If you have questions about your rights under these laws, you may benefit from speaking with a lawyer in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Local Ordinances and Additional Protections 

In addition to federal and state statutes, various local ordinances within Pennsylvania provide further protections against age discrimination. Cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have enacted specific rules prohibiting age discrimination. These local ordinances may cover employers that have fewer than four employees, potentially extending protections to even smaller workplaces. Further, these ordinances can include particular filing deadlines, unique complaint procedures, and additional forms of relief beyond what is available under federal or state law.

By briefly reviewing the local ordinance in one’s specific municipality, employees may identify deadlines or reporting structures that supplement or differ from the well-known requirements of the ADEA or PHRA. Employers operating in multiple locations within Pennsylvania should likewise stay aware of any local mandates to ensure compliance on every level. Understanding that local laws may overlap with or expand upon state and federal protections is important for both employees and employers to avoid missing potential avenues of redress or inadvertently violating stricter local standards.

A Scranton, Pennsylvania attorney can help guide individuals and businesses through the specifics of local age discrimination rules and ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.

What Age Discrimination Looks Like 

Age discrimination can take many forms, from blatant acts to subtler policies that disproportionately affect older workers. A classic example involves an employer bypassing a more qualified individual aged 40 or older in favor of a younger, less qualified candidate. Another frequent scenario is when an older employee is terminated under the guise of “restructuring” or “downsizing,” but their role is soon refilled by a noticeably younger individual.

Harassment on account of age is another concern. Older employees may endure insults about being out of touch with modern technology, jokes about retirement, or pressure to “make room” for younger talent. Although one or two offhand remarks may not necessarily rise to the level of unlawful conduct, consistent age-related comments that create a hostile environment can constitute illegal harassment. The legal test is whether the treatment is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of the workplace.

Mandatory retirement policies often raise questions regarding whether forcing an employee to leave at a certain age is permissible. Generally, such policies are impermissible in most occupations. There are narrow exceptions in specific fields, such as certain public safety roles or aviation positions, where bona fide occupational qualifications may apply. Employers in these areas must show that restricting a job to a certain age range is essential and that no reasonable alternative exists to meet legitimate safety or operational needs.

Continuing Violations and Discovery of Harm 

Sometimes employees do not immediately recognize that they are experiencing age discrimination if the conduct evolves gradually over time. The continuing violation doctrine can extend the deadline for filing charges when an employee can show that certain discriminatory actions are part of an ongoing practice. Under this doctrine, earlier prohibited acts may be considered timely if they form part of a continuous pattern that continued into the filing period.

Discovery of harm may also affect how filing deadlines are calculated. In some cases, an individual may not fully realize they have been adversely affected by an employer’s age-based policies until specifics come to light significantly later. Although deadlines remain strict, these doctrines can offer limited avenues to pursue claims that span multiple incidents. Understanding these exceptions is critical to avoiding missed opportunities for legal relief.

Federal Government Employees 

Many federal government workers in Pennsylvania benefit from similar protections under the ADEA, but their process for asserting rights differs from that in the private sector. A federal employee typically must first contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within a short window—often within 45 days—after the date of the alleged discriminatory act. If the issue cannot be resolved informally, the employee may file a formal complaint with the relevant federal agency. Only after exhausting this administrative process can the employee pursue a lawsuit in federal court. This timeline is generally shorter than the 180-day or 300-day periods applicable to private sector or state employees, highlighting the importance of prompt action when age discrimination issues arise in federal employment.

Procedural Requirements for Filing an Age Discrimination Complaint 

For private sector and state or local government employees, the first step in filing an age discrimination complaint is often a charge with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). Under federal law, employees generally have 180 days from the alleged discriminatory act to file a charge with the EEOC. However, Pennsylvania’s status as a deferral state typically extends that filing period to 300 days if the alleged violation could also contravene the PHRA. The PHRC similarly enforces state-level protections, and since the PHRA covers employers with as few as four employees, workers employed by smaller entities can file their claims with the PHRC.

Many individuals are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. This means the EEOC or PHRC must be given an opportunity to investigate and attempt to resolve the claimed discrimination. If the administrative investigation does not end in a resolution or if the agency concludes no violation occurred, the individual receives a right-to-sue letter (EEOC) or similar documentation (PHRC). It is then possible to proceed to court under federal law (ADEA) or Pennsylvania law (PHRA), as appropriate. Filing promptly is critical: missing the applicable administrative deadline usually forfeits the right to pursue the claim.

If you have questions about age discrimination complaints and filing procedures, you may want to consult with an attorney in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Employer Defenses and Exceptions 

Employers accused of violating age discrimination laws may raise several defenses. One is the argument that a “reasonable factor other than age” caused the adverse employment action. For instance, an employer might point to legitimate cost considerations, restructuring plans, or performance-based decisions that did not specifically target older workers. Yet if those reasons appear to be a pretext for discriminatory motives, the employer’s defense may fail.

Another defense involves a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). This is a rigorous exception requiring the employer to prove that limiting a position to a specific age is vital to the essence of the business and that no reasonable alternative exists. Customer preference for younger workers, convenience, or mere assumptions about older employees’ suitability cannot meet the BFOQ standard. The exception has been recognized in limited circumstances, typically involving safety in aviation or other physically demanding roles, where an age limit may be firmly tied to a critical job function.

Workforce Reductions and Early Retirement Incentives 

Workforce reductions, reorganizations, and early retirement incentives can present heightened risks for age discrimination. When an employer decides to downsize, the selection criteria must be age-neutral and consistently applied. Documented performance evaluations, attendance records, or legitimate elimination of certain job functions can help show that the employer is acting on fair, business-driven reasons rather than harboring discriminatory intent. Nonetheless, if an employer’s reorganization plan disproportionately affects workers over 40, or if younger employees remain in similar roles despite allegedly objective criteria, the employer may face an age discrimination claim.

Early retirement incentives are similarly fraught if they appear aimed primarily at pushing out older employees. Employers are permitted to structure voluntary retirement offers, but they cannot threaten older employees with negative repercussions if they decline the offer. For instance, giving an employee insufficient time to review the retirement package or suggesting that refusal may lead to sudden termination could be coercive. Properly structured incentive plans focus on making a voluntary, attractive option available rather than forcing or pressuring older workers to leave. As an example, an employer wanting to avoid potential discrimination claims might rely on uniform guidelines for selecting who is eligible for the retirement package. Those guidelines could include job-specific factors or years of service, applied without reference to the individual’s chronological age.

Evidentiary Standards in Age Discrimination Cases 

Employees alleging age discrimination generally must show that age was a “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse action under the ADEA. This requirement means that even if other factors played a role, the harmful decision would not have occurred without the employee’s age factoring into it. Pennsylvania courts often use a burden-shifting framework, commonly referred to based on certain federal precedents, to analyze whether an employee can demonstrate that an employer’s reason for taking adverse action is pretextual.

In many age discrimination lawsuits, a plaintiff first offers evidence creating an inference that discrimination influenced the employer’s decision. The employer then responds with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its action. Finally, the plaintiff can attempt to show that these reasons are a pretext masking age bias. This standard underscores the importance of documenting every step of employment actions in a consistent, objective manner. The better the employer’s record-keeping and rationale, the more likely it can counter allegations of pretext. A Scranton, Pennsylvania lawyer can advise employees or employers on how these evidentiary standards apply in a particular case.

Strategic Considerations in Choosing a Forum 

When pursuing an age discrimination claim in Pennsylvania, employees may consider whether to proceed under federal law, state law, or both. While the ADEA and PHRA share many similarities, key differences can impact a litigation strategy. For instance, the PHRA allows compensatory damages for emotional distress, while the ADEA does not typically offer these damages. In terms of procedures, litigating in state court could permit a broader range of remedies and alternative evidentiary rules, but federal courts tend to have more experience interpreting the ADEA and may be seen as more predictable on certain legal points.

Practical factors also come into play. Forum selection sometimes influences the pace of litigation, potential jury pools, costs, and discovery practices. Lawyers may evaluate which location is most accessible, whether the case is more naturally aligned with state-based or federal claims, or which set of rules is most favorable. Moreover, if the employer size and location trigger coverage by local ordinances, an employee might elect to file in a municipal enforcement agency or seek an additional remedy under that local law. Making a strategic choice typically involves weighing each forum’s processes, damages, timelines, and likelihood of success.

Remedies for Age Discrimination 

Several forms of relief may be available to individuals harmed by age discrimination:

• Back Pay: Courts or agencies can order employers to compensate for lost wages or benefits the employee would have earned if not for the discrimination.
• Front Pay or Reinstatement: An employee who lost a job may be reinstated if a position remains available, or, if reinstatement is impractical, a court might award front pay in lieu of returning to the company.
• Liquidated Damages: In ADEA cases, if an employer’s conduct is deemed willful, the court may double the back pay, awarding that same amount as liquidated damages.
• Compensatory Damages: Under the PHRA, individuals can seek compensation for emotional distress, mental anguish, or reputational harms.
• Attorney’s Fees and Costs: An employee who prevails may recoup costs of litigation, making it financially feasible to pursue claims even when the lost wages alone might not justify the expense.
• Equitable Relief and Policy Changes: Courts can direct employers to amend or implement policies to deter future discriminatory behavior, including mandatory training, new review mechanisms, or tighter oversight of age-related decisions.

These remedies serve the dual purpose of compensating employees for the personal and financial harm they have suffered, as well as deterring employers from future unlawful practices. In many situations, the aim is to “make whole” an individual who experienced discrimination, returning them as closely as possible to the position they would have occupied had no unlawful conduct occurred.

Retaliation 

Retaliation protections guard individuals who speak out about or oppose age-based mistreatment. Both the ADEA and the PHRA prohibit employers from taking adverse actions—such as demotion, pay reduction, denial of promotion, negative performance reviews, or unwarranted discipline—against employees who assert their rights or help others pursue discrimination claims. Even if the underlying discrimination complaint does not ultimately succeed, an employee can still prevail on a retaliation claim if there was a reasonable, good-faith basis for the original complaint and a causal connection exists between that complaint and the employer’s adverse action.

Common employer justifications for retaliatory measures include citing alleged performance problems or reorganization. However, if an employee has consistent performance reviews and reorganizations affect only those who lodged complaints, this might be evidence of unlawful retaliation. The existence of strong anti-retaliation measures is crucial; it allows employees to assert their rights without fear of punishment, fostering a culture where discriminatory practices can be challenged and corrected.

By enforcing these prohibitions and remedies—including damages, equitable relief, and enforceable policy changes—Pennsylvania law encourages a culture in which workers over the age of 40 are assessed according to merit and skill, rather than outdated stereotypes. Age discrimination laws remain integral to ensuring that employees across the state receive fair treatment, from small businesses bound by the PHRA to larger companies covered by both state and federal statutes. Employers and employees alike benefit from heightened awareness of these protections and the legal pathways designed to remedy violations. If you are facing issues related to retaliation or age discrimination, consulting with a lawyer in Scranton, Pennsylvania can help you understand your options and protect your rights.

Assistance With Legal Issues in the Workplace

Assistance With Legal Issues in the Workplace can help preserve your rights when age discrimination or other employment concerns arise. If you suspect that you have been treated unfairly or want to take proactive steps to safeguard your rights, our Scranton, Pennsylvania lawyers are prepared to help. By examining the facts of your situation and applying legal protections outlined under the ADEA, PHRA, and local ordinances, Polishan Solfanelli provides counsel designed to achieve practical solutions. We can guide you through filing claims, negotiating settlements, or navigating litigation, all while focusing on your specific goals. Whether you have questions about workplace policies, potential retaliation, or uncertainties about the next steps, a tailored legal approach can help protect both your professional and personal well-being. Contact Polishan Solfanelli at 570-562-4520 to learn about options that may be available to address your employment-related legal issues. Qualified legal support can better clarify your path forward.