<\/p>\n
This gap may be attributable to several factors, including the difficulty of meeting the \u201cbut-for\u201d standard established in Gross, as well as inadequate funding and staffing at the EEOC. However, the relatively low number of lawsuits filed by the agency and low rate of successful resolutions suggest a bottleneck. In Fiscal Year 2023, the agency received 81,055 total charges, a 10% increase from the previous year and the highest number since FY 2017. Determining who qualifies as an \u201cemployee\u201d versus \u201cindependent contractor\u201d can be complex, and ensuring flexible work policies are applied without age bias requires careful attention.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the 2000 Supreme Court case Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Court held that due to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, state employees cannot sue their state employers for monetary damages under the ADEA in federal court. This threshold differs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The law covers private-sector employers engaged in commerce with 20 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year. This expansion dramatically broadened the law\u2019s scope, ensuring employees are protected from age discrimination for their entire working lives beyond 40. The legislative record shows lawmakers understood this wasn\u2019t merely individual hardship but a matter of national economic importance.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Pennsylvania\u2019s Human Relations Act (43 P.S. \u00a7 954(b) and \u00a7 955(a)) protects workers age 40 and older but covers employers with just four or more employees\u2014reaching many workers who fall outside ADEA coverage. The ADEA prohibits both intentional discrimination and policies that have a disproportionate adverse impact on older workers. This includes state and local government employers regardless of size, following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, 586 U.S. 1 (2018). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination by employers with 20 or more employees, as established in 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 631(a) and \u00a7 630(b). According to the EEOC (2018), charges alleging discriminatory terms and conditions of employment\u2014which includes promotion and opportunity disparities\u2014increased from 13% in 1992 to 25% in 2017.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n