Inside AARP’s Fight to Stop Age Discrimination in the Workplace

In Oregon, AARP Oregon staff and volunteers collected nearly 4,000 signed petitions across the state in support of the legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Nathan Sosa (D) with bipartisan support. Herman and other AARP volunteers provided testimony of their encounters with age bias to help get the bill passed.

The new Oregon legislation “cannot solve all the flaws in Oregon’s law when it comes to workplace age discrimination, but this bill is a great first step,” said Andrea Meyer, AARP Oregon’s director of government relations. “We look forward to working with [lawmakers] in the future to provide more protections.”

Better federal protections needed

Workers ages 75 and older represent the fastest-growing age group in the U.S. workforce, more than quadrupling in size since 1964, according to the Pew Research Center. Some of these older adults are remaining in the workforce to stay active and engaged, while others are simply not financially prepared to retire yet.

But as the number of older U.S. employees booms, age discrimination is still running rampant. Federal protections for older workers are not keeping up, which is why AARP is endorsing bills that would help ensure that all workers are treated fairly based on their qualifications, not their age.

A major bill we are supporting this year is the POWADA, which was reintroduced into Congress this month. The legislation, if passed, would reinstate prior legal standards on workplace discrimination that were undermined by the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. The court’s ruling on this case currently forces workers to meetd a much higher burden of proof for age discrimination than any other form of discrimination.

“This bill helps level the playing field for older workers and restores their ability to fight back against age discrimination in the workplace,” AARP’s Bill Sweeney, senior vice president of government affairs, wrote in letters to the bill’s House and Senate sponsors, urging its passage. 

Additionally, we are seeking the reintroduction of the Protect Older Job Applicants Act, which would amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to ensure older job applicants, not just current employees, are protected against age discrimination. We also endorsed the EITC for Older Workers Act in April, which would permanently remove the discriminatory upper age cap of 65 on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Oregon’s clampdown on age-related hiring questions

At the state level, our work in Oregon will have an impact. While Oregon is generally considered an employee-friendly state with some of the most robust worker protections in the country, age discrimination is still pervasive. Fifty-five percent of Oregonians 40 or older who were either working or looking for a job in 2023 said they had seen or experienced age discrimination in their workplace, according to a survey by AARP Oregon.

This kind of ageism can have a “very real economic, emotional and social impact,” wrote AARP’s Meyer in her testimony to lawmakers on the bill. “For those who are laid off and then unable to find work at all, many are forced to spend down their retirement or sign up early for Social Security, cutting their annual benefits. Financial strain leads to worse physical and mental health outcomes. And in some cases, it can lead to homelessness.”

AARP Oregon’s 2023 survey also found that 50 percent of older workers who had applied for a job in the five years prior had been asked to provide birth dates, graduation dates or other age-related information in their application. The new law, which takes effect in September, will directly combat that, banning such questions until later in the hiring process.  

Older workers will be able to “get their foot in the door,” Meyer wrote, especially those applying for jobs through online portals, which often don’t accept applications unless such age-identifying information has been entered.

“The truth is, though, age should never be asked at any time in the hiring process and it’s only relevant in very limited situations when there is an actual age requirement,” Meyer added. “And in reality, graduation dates are really only relevant when someone is offered the job and the employer needs to verify the applicant was telling the truth.”