As our workforce ages, issues of harassment, discriminatory treatment, and forced retirement have become more prevalent. Employers, driven by inherent bias or a desire to cut costs, have increasingly engaged in age discrimination during employment decisions. Shockingly, a report by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revealed that 60% of employees aged 45 and older have experienced or witnessed age discrimination at work. Moreover, over 75% believe their age hinders their job prospects. Employers often associate age with increased health problems, proneness to injury, and higher insurance costs.

Age discrimination remains a persistent problem. Our employment lawyers have the proven experience necessary to fight for the rights of older workers.

Age discrimination remains a persistent problem in employment law. As our workforce ages, issues of harassment, discriminatory treatment and forced retirement are growing worse. Our employment lawyers have the proven skill and experience necessary to fight for the rights of older workers.

Whether due to inherent bias, a need to cut costs, or a desire to eliminate high-risk employees from the payroll, employers have increasingly engaged in age discrimination in their employment decisions. A 2018 report by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that 60% of employees age 45 and older have seen or experienced age discrimination at work. More than 75% believe their age hurts their job prospects. Further, employers often associate age with increased health problems, a proneness to injury, and higher insurance costs.


Minnesota employees are protected from age discrimination under both federal and state laws. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is the federal law that prohibits discrimination against employees age 40 and older from being treated less favorably because of age. Similar protection is provided under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Under both statutes, employers are prohibited from discrimination in any aspect of employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, termination, layoff, job duties, promotions, pay and benefits. Further, employers are barred from:

  • Refusing to hire or excluding a person seeking employment unreasonably based on age.
  • Firing or discriminate against a person with respect to hiring, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or privileges of employment
  • Discriminating against an employee regarding hiring, compensation, job duties, facilities, or privileges based on age.
  • Requesting age-related information, except for compliance with legally required rules, regulations, or laws.


There are certain employer practices that commonly suggest age discrimination. Indicators that age was a factor in an employer’s decision to take adverse actions against employees (e.g. termination, discipline, etc.) include:

  • Age-related comments and name-calling; coworkers might refer to an older worker as grandpa or grandma, make references to “slowing down” and “not being able to keep up with the younger workers” or tell them “you ought to know better at your age”
  • References and questions about retirement, inability to grasp new technology, or younger workers being faster, better and cheaper are all comments that may be indicative of ageism in the workplace
  • Situations in which younger workers are offered more or higher quality training and/or promotion opportunities than older and/or long-term employees


In many reductions in force, age discrimination occurs when laid off individuals are simply replaced by younger workers – even if the younger replacements were over 40 years old. Age discrimination also occurs where the individuals selected for termination are primarily long-term and/or older workers. Employees who believe they have experienced age discrimination in a layoff or reduction in force should pay attention to the other employees selected for layoff at the same time. In addition, employees should note whether there is a trend in eliminating old, long-term, injured or ill employees.

Employment lawyers at our firm represented eight employees who were “laid off” from their employment with a Minnesota employer. Upon review of the individuals selected for layoff (in what the employer labeled a reduction in force), the employees learned that nearly all eight were older, long-term employees and had additional health and injury-related issues that arose during employment. The employees alleged that the company made termination decisions based, in part, on age discrimination, as well as disability discrimination, on-the-job injuries (workers’ compensation retaliation) and health conditions requiring FMLA leave.

In this instance, the employees selected for termination were offered severance payments and severance agreements. Although the company brought a motion to dismiss the claims of those who signed the severance agreements, a U.S. District Court judge disagreed with the company and found that the employees did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the severance agreements, which is required to make a severance agreement valid.


Age-related hostility in the workplace may create a hostile work environment, impacting an individual or group’s job performance. Managers or supervisors who treat older workers differently, using derogatory comments and names, may be fostering a hostile environment.


Wanta Thome PLC is dedicated to protecting the rights of employees throughout Minnesota. If you believe you have experienced age discrimination at work or if you believe you were terminated from your job because of your age, our employment lawyers want to hear from you. Contact us for a free initial consultation.


Contact us for a no-obligation confidential consultation with our employment law team.