Age Bias Jury Verdict
A recent federal jury verdict should catch every California employer’s attention: $100 million awarded in an age discrimination case.
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act provides robust protections for workers age 40 and older. When employers make decisions based on age rather than legitimate business factors, the financial consequences can be catastrophic.
Age discrimination cases often follow a predictable pattern. A long-tenured employee suddenly receives negative performance reviews after years of satisfactory evaluations. Management makes comments about wanting “fresh perspectives” or bringing in “new energy.” The employee is terminated or pushed out, often replaced by someone significantly younger.
California employers need to understand that FEHA places the burden squarely on them. Unlike federal law, California requires employers to prove that age was not a motivating factor in employment decisions. This higher standard makes California one of the most employee-protective states for age discrimination claims.
The problem typically starts with documentation—or the lack of it. Performance issues that supposedly justify termination often aren’t documented until after the decision to terminate has been made. This backwards documentation pattern raises immediate red flags for juries. If the performance was truly deficient, why wasn’t it documented contemporaneously?
Age-related comments create another major liability. Managers may think comments about “retirement plans” or “succession planning” are innocent. They’re not. Statements about wanting “younger perspectives” or concerns about an employee’s “energy level” can be presented as direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
California law protects employees from age discrimination in all employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, compensation, training opportunities, and termination. The protections extend beyond direct age-based decisions to policies that have a disparate impact on older workers.
For California employers, prevention requires three critical steps. First, establish objective performance standards and document performance consistently. Don’t wait until you’re planning to terminate someone to start documenting problems. Regular performance reviews with specific, measurable feedback create a defensible record.
Second, train all supervisors and managers on age discrimination law. They need to understand that age-related comments—even seemingly positive ones like “you’ve got so much experience”—can be used against the company. Comments about retirement, succession planning, or generational differences should be avoided entirely in the employment context.
Third, review termination decisions for age-based patterns. If your terminations disproportionately affect older workers, you need to examine whether age is playing a role in decision-making. Statistical evidence of age-based patterns can support claims of systemic discrimination.
Reduction-in-force situations require particular caution. When eliminating positions, selection criteria must be objective, consistently applied, and documented before the process begins. If the RIF results in terminating primarily older workers while retaining younger ones in comparable roles, expect scrutiny.
California juries take age discrimination seriously. They understand that losing a job in your 50s or 60s has devastating financial consequences that differ from losing a job at 30. They’re sympathetic to long-tenured employees who suddenly find themselves replaced by younger workers.
The lesson from large jury verdicts isn’t that employers can never terminate older employees. It’s that termination decisions must be based on legitimate, documented business reasons that have nothing to do with age. When age appears to be a factor—through comments, timing, or statistical patterns—juries will hold employers accountable.
Are your employment practices putting you at risk for age discrimination claims?
#AgeDiscrimination #FEHA #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw #EmployerLiability #WorkplaceLaw
Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered and is not legal advice, and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. It is recommended to consult with an attorney directly for specific guidance pertaining to your business or individual situation.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication. This post may be attorney advertising.
Michael Trust Law, APC, 703 Pier Avenue, Ste. B367, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254: michaeltrustlaw.com