Age Discrimination

Michael Trust founded Michael Trust Law, APC after more than 35 years in HR leadership across entertainment, healthcare, higher education, finance, banking, solar energy, and other industries, including managing approximately 35,000 disability and leave-of-absence cases. He holds the SPHR, PHRca, and SHRM-SCP credentials. The PHRca is a California-specific HR credential focused on California employment law and HR practice. According to HRCI’s published pass-rate statistics at https://www.hrci.org/pass-rates, the PHRca has the lowest pass rate of all HRCI credentials — 47% as of December 31, 2025, compared with 71–84% for HRCI’s other certifications — and only 293 candidates worldwide tested for it in 2025. That HR-systems background helps identify HR process issues early, which can shape legal analysis on both sides.

Employee Age Discrimination

Michael Trust Law, APC represents employees subjected to bias based on age. California law prohibits discrimination against workers age 40 and older. We fight to hold employers accountable and protect your career opportunities.

Age Discrimination

A typical age discrimination scenario involves an employee 40 or older facing replacement with a substantially younger worker after years of satisfactory performance, often accompanied by stray remarks about energy, cultural fit, or the need for fresh perspective. Under FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code §12941), the substantial-motivating-factor standard from Harris v. City of Santa Monica applies even in mixed-motive cases, and the documentary record of comparator treatment typically drives the analysis.

California Age Discrimination — Employee Rights

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against employees and applicants who are 40 years of age or older (Cal. Gov. Code §12940(a); Cal. Gov. Code §12941). Remedies and analytical standards under FEHA differ from federal ADEA in several respects.

How Age Discrimination Cases Are Analyzed

Most FEHA single-motive disparate-treatment cases are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In mixed-motive cases — where age may have been one of several factors — California applies the “substantial motivating factor” standard articulated in Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. The practical implication is that the employee does not need to show age was the sole or even the predominant reason, only that it was a substantial motivating factor. Whether the standard is met depends on the documentary record, comparator evidence, ageist remarks if any, and the credibility of the employer’s stated reasons — all fact-specific.

When to Contact Us

Age discrimination cases often turn on patterns visible only with careful documentation. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a 30-minute conversation.

Initial contact does not create an attorney-client relationship — see Disclaimers.

Cal. Gov. Code §12940(a); Cal. Gov. Code §12941; Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203.

Explore Related Employee Services

Browse all California employment law topics

Frequently Asked Questions

It can be, depending on the documentary record. FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code §12941) protects employees 40 and older against age-based adverse action, and Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 applies the substantial-motivating-factor standard even in mixed-motive cases. Replacement by a substantially younger worker is one piece of evidence — comparator treatment, performance documentation, and stray remarks typically drive the analysis.

Stray remarks are evidence, but typically not enough alone. The strength of a case usually depends on whether the remarks are tied to the decisionmaker, are close in time to the adverse action, and pattern with other evidence of disparate treatment. Document remarks contemporaneously — exact words and dates — as they often become important much later.

Severance agreements involving employees 40 or older trigger specific federal requirements under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (29 U.S.C. §626(f)), including a minimum 21-day consideration period (45 days in group layoff situations) and a 7-day post-signing revocation right. California also requires specific waiver language under Cal. Civ. Code §1542. Do not sign before consulting counsel.

Michael Trust Law, APC stands with employees facing bias based on age. We fight to restore fairness, recover damages, and hold employers accountable under California law.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC Today