If you can't force older employees to retire, how do you succession plan?

Employers face a legitimate—and growing—problem: if older employees aren't retiring on schedule (or at all), how do you plan for leadership transitions and future staffing needs without committing age discrimination?

The answer starts with recognizing that today's workforce doesn't retire the way it used to. Many employees expect to work past 65, often for financial reasons or because they want to stay active and engaged. Employers who build succession plans around outdated retirement assumptions are setting themselves up to fail.

What doesn't work (and is illegal) is pressure. You can't demote older employees, cut their pay, strip responsibilities, or make their jobs unpleasant in hopes they'll "choose" to retire. That’s not workforce planning—it's an age discrimination constructive discharge claim waiting to happen.

So, what does work?

Mangement discussion of an older worker's "retirement" as age discrimination

"When are you retiring?" That's not an employer's call to make.

Here's a rule that employers still manage to forget or ignore: the decision about when to retire belongs to the employee. Start nudging. Start hinting. Start asking. Start factoring it into employment decisions. And you're flirting with, if not outright committing, age discrimination.

An Ohio appellate court recently reinforced that lesson in Selzer v. Union Home Mortgage, reversing summary judgment for the employer and sending an age discrimination case back for trial.

Greg Selzer was a 64-year-old loan officer assistant. According to the record, his supervisors repeatedly pressed him about his retirement plans. Then came the email that mattered most: a vice president involved in the termination decision wrote that Selzer "keeps saying he will retire but hasn't." Another executive admitted that the purpose of that email was to justify why Selzer landed on the reduction-in-force list. And another employee confirmed that Selzer's proximity to retirement factored into the decision to terminate him.

The trial court bought the RIF explanation and dismissed the case. The court of appeals did not.

A plaintiff can prove age discrimination claims by direct or indirect evidence of discriminatory intent. In this case, the appellate court made clear that repeated inquiries about retirement when made by decision makers and tied to a termination decision qualify as direct evidence.

Yes, courts have said that merely using the word "retire" isn’t automatically discriminatory. But context matters. Here, the comments were frequent, made by supervisors, closely tied to the discharge, and—most damning—used as a justification for termination.

The employer argued it was just planning ahead. And believe me, I get it. When an employee eventually does retire, without proper succession planning, you could be caught off guard, scrambling to replace institutional knowledge and forced into a rushed and risky replacement decision. Courts, however, remain skeptical, and often recognize that "longevity" is just a proxy for age. Changing the label doesn't change the motive.

The takeaway for employers is simple:

Don't ask when employees plan to retire.
Don't speculate internally about retirement timelines.
And don't document retirement assumptions in RIF decisions.

Let employees retire when they choose. Support them in that decision. (I offer some tips on how to do that here.) Employees decide their retirement date. Employers don't get to decide for them—and those that try may find themselves staring down the barrel of an age discrimination lawsuit.

It's wrong. It should have never been said. But is it illegal discrimination?

"Old man, you been here longer than I've been alive. Are you ready to retire?"

Kenneth Lowe had worked at Walbro for over 40 years. In 2018, at age 60, he was fired. According to the company, his position as Area Manager was no longer needed. According to Lowe, it was age discrimination.

He sued, claiming his supervisor had made several age-related comments, including the one above, which was said during a ceremony celebrating Lowe's 40th work anniversary. Lowe said his boss also made other comments like "let the old guy do it," and "are you losing a step?"

At trial, the jury bought it. They gave Lowe over $2.3 million in damages. But the judge threw out the verdict and entered judgment for the company instead. The 6th Circuit just affirmed.

PIPs are performance improvement plans, not employee termination plans

The point of a performance improvement plan isn't to fire someone, it's to help them improve. It's right there is the name. But too often, PIPs aren't about performance or improvement.

For example, in Murphy v. Caterpillar Inc., the 7th Circuit just reversed summary judgment on the employee's age discrimination claim, and the court's reasoning serves as a stern warning to any employer using PIPs as a shortcut to termination.

Here's what Caterpillar got wrong about the PIP it delivered to Brian Murphy, a 58-year-old engineer:

I want my records back, records back, records back

When you destroy the evidence that could justify a termination, don’t be surprised when a court refuses to take your side. That's the message from the 6th Circuit's recent decision in Kean v. Brinker International, Inc., where a 59-year-old general manager of a Chili's, owned and operated by Brinker International, was fired despite running one of the most successful stores in his market.

Brinker claimed he was let go for not "living the Chili's way"—an amorphous explanation about bad "culture." Instead, Kean claimed age discrimination, supported by his stellar performance records and his post-firing replacement by someone 26 years his junior.

Brinker, however, could not support any its reasons for Kean's termination because it had destroyed all of the documents related to the termination.

2.5 million reasons to avoid age discrimination

"Younger and hungrier."

That was the phrase executives at CrossCountry Mortgage allegedly used to describe the kind of people they wanted in their accounting department.

The only problem? They already had Cheryl Shephard, a senior accountant who wasn't "younger." Shephard was 65. And a CPA. No disciplinary record. No PIP. Just years of reliable, quality work with strong performance reviews

Then, out of the blue, CrossCounty Mortage fired her in a so-called reduction in force.

Documentation wins cases

Charles Carroll worked as a high-ranking exec at IDEMIA, the company behind TSA PreCheck. He ran a new initiative called "Trusted Fan" and was involved in renewing a major TSA contract.

He was also in his 60s and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A year after disclosing his diagnosis, and after delivering the TSA contract renewal, he was fired. The company said it was due to performance issues: lack of leadership, mishandling the Trusted Fan rollout, and frustrations around the contract renewal process.  

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer across the board, including on Carroll's disability and age discrimination. Why? One word: documentation.

Bevisförstöring is not the name of an IKEA bookcase; it's Swedish for spoliation of evidence.

A federal judge recently ordered IKEA to pay $566,731.53 in attorneys' fees and costs as a part of sanctions for deleting employee emails in three consolidated class-action age-discrimination lawsuits.

Here's what happened. In April 2022, the court ordered IKEA to produce the email files of its chief human resources officer, global head of DEI, several store managers, and its recruitment manager. This production was to occur on a rolling basis and be completed by the end of 2023.

IKEA failed to produce a single email. In fact, it couldn't produce any emails because they had been deleted years earlier, after already being part of an earlier production order—a fact IKEA hid from the court and opposing counsel for months.

Does a prank involving adult diapers and a wheelchair = age discrimination? It depends.

An attorney celebrates a paralegal's 50th birthday by decorating her office party with a wheelchair, fake pill bottles, and adult diapers. (Get it? She's "old.")

The paralegal does not appreciate the joke, and lets the lawyer know as much. In response, the lawyer simply moves the decorations adjacent to the paralegal's workstation. Around the same time, the lawyer also starts asking when the paralegal intends to retire.

Ending the “ism” of ageism

"Ageism is really one of the last acceptable 'isms' that society tolerates," says AARP senior advisor Heather Tinsley-Fix.

The numbers back her up. According to a recent AARP report, two-thirds of adults over 50 believe older workers face age discrimination in the workplace, and 90% of that group believe ageism is commonplace.

How do we best combat ageism and age discrimination in our workplaces? Here are 6 suggestions.

Do you know what recruiters are telling candidates on your behalf?

“The company is looking for someone more junior to fill this position.”

That’s what John Larkin claims an Exact Sciences recruiting consultant told him after he was not selected for a professional medical sales representative position. It’s also why the EEOC is now suing Exact Sciences for age discrimination.

Ageist and ableist statements to 58-year-old disabled employee doom employer’s discrimination defense

"I wouldn't think with your condition and—your medical condition and your age that you would want to teach."

"I think your disability is slowing all this down.… You're really too old to be doing this."

"You need to go ahead and retire.… I'm concerned about this disability you have, your condition with your liver."

"Just how disabled are you?"

"I'm tired of disabilities and I'm tired of medical problems."

"I'm not running a rehabilitation clinic."

"If you're not at 100 percent, I can't use you. You've got to be 100 percent for this job."
 

These are just some of the comments Robert Bledsoe — a 58-year-old nuclear-plant operator who returned to work following a liver transplant — claims his supervisor made to him in the months prior to his removal from a teaching position. The Tennessee Valley Authority, on the other hand, claimed that it demoted Bledsoe based on ethical concerns after his son was accepted to the training program he taught.

It’s a bad idea — and age discrimination — to badger an older employee about retirement

A new manager takes away a pet project from a long-term 60-year-old employee, repeatedly asks him when he's "going to retire," calls him "Uncle," and criticizes his "old skills." Those are the basic facts that caused the 6th Circuit to reverse a grant of summary judgment to the employer in Sloat v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.

Coronavirus Update 9-10-2020: The coming wave of Covid-related age discrimination lawsuits

The EEOC has sued Ohio State University for age discrimination, alleging that the school discriminated against a 53-year-old human resources generalist because of his age by assigning a substantial substantial portion of his duties to a short-tenured co-worker 25 years his junior. 

"If a termination is age-discriminatory, dis­guising it behind a supposed reduction in force will not change that," says EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence in discussing the filing of the lawsuit.

What does this lawsuit, which challenges a termination that occurred all the way back in March 2018, have to do with the COVID-19 pandemic? 

You can't prove age discrimination if you're replaced by someone older

Crescent Metal Products fired Donald Tschappatt for a variety of instances of poor work performance. He made "negative comments" about co-workers. He stood around doing nothing and disappeared from his work area. He took extended bathroom breaks. And he made various assembly and packing errors.

After the company fired the 55-year-old Tschappatt, he sued for age discrimination.

The problem with Tschappatt's claim? Crescent Metal Products replaced him with someone six years older. That's not a great fact for an employee claiming age discrimination.

“OK Boomer” makes its Supreme Court debut

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Babb v. Wilkie, which will decide whether the “but-for” causation standard of proof applicable to private-sector employees in age discrimination claims under the ADEA also applies to federal-sector agency employees.

Even for this employment-law geek, not the most scintillating of cases.

That is, until Chief Justice Roberts (a Boomer) posed this question to the plaintiff’s counsel during oral argument:

New study reveals that age discrimination remains a worsening problem for employers

Insurance company Hiscox just released its 2019 Ageism in the Workplace Study [pdf], which revealed some sobering statistics about the growing problem of age discrimination for American employers.

I can name that lawsuit in one note

Demetria Kalodimos, age 58, worked as an anchor for Nashville's WSMV for 33 years. After the station failed to renew her contract, she sued for age and gender discrimination.

When salary is a proxy for age discrimination

Jim Boylan, recently fired as an assistant coach with the Cleveland Cavaliers, has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer. According his lawsuit [pdf], then-head coach Ty Lue told him that team owner Dan Gilbert "wants to go younger" in his position and "find somebody who's a grinder and younger."

On its face, those statements certainly seem like direct evidence of age discrimination.

But are they?

As our workforce ages, age discrimination is only going to worsen

Happy Golden Birthday, Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

On June 13, 2018, the ADEA turned 50.

To commemorate this milestone, the EEOC just released a report entitled The State of Older Workers and Age Discrimination 50 Years After the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).