29 C.F.R. § 1625.2
Discrimination prohibited by the Act
It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual in any aspect of employment because that individual is 40 years old or older, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Favoring an older individual over a younger individual because of age is not unlawful discrimination under the ADEA, even if the younger individual is at least 40 years old. However, the ADEA does not require employers to prefer older individuals and does not affect applicable state, municipal, or local laws that prohibit such preferences.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1984–2004 · leading case: Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004).
Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004). “C The third objection relies on a reading consistent with the Yarborough comment, adopted by the agency now charged with enforcing the statute, as set out at 29 CFR § 1625.2 (a) (2003), and quoted in full, n.”
Roderick LA MONTAGNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Am. CONVENIENCE Prods., INC., Defendant-Appellee, 750 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1984). “2 , which reads: (a) It is unlawful in situations where [the ADEA] applies, for an employer to discriminate in hiring or in any other way by giving preference because of age between individuals within the 40-70 age bracket. Thus, if two people apply for the same position, and…”
Paul H. KRALMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS Dep't OF Vets.’ AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee, 23 F.3d 150 (7th Cir. 1994). “6 Furthermore, a regulation promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expressly states that: (a) It is unlawful in situations where this Act applies, for an employer to discriminate in hiring or in any other way by giving preference because of age between…”
Dennis Cline v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 296 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2002). “29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (a) (emphasis added). While a court can certainly interpret a statute and properly reach a different conclusion from a federal agency, we are persuaded that the EEOC’s interpretation of the ADEA is a true rendering of the language.”
Michael R. Hamilton, Individually & on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Caterpillar Inc., a Delaware Corp., 966 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (a) (1991). Moreover, there is some arguable support for this position in the statute itself.”
Dick Mayall v. Peabody Coal Co., 7 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 1993). “4, quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (a). . The challenged jury instruction was presented as follows: The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions: First, that plaintiff was terminated from his job.”
Miller v. Lyng, 660 F. Supp. 1375 (D.D.C. 1987). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (a). Thus, it is now hornbook law that the ADEA covers "discrimination based on age between younger and older persons within the group protected by the Act.”
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Local Union Nos. 605 & 985, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 945 F. Supp. 980 (S.D. Miss. 1996). “See Title 29 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (a) (stating “It is unlawful in situations where this Act applies, for an employer to discriminate in hiring or in any other way by giving preference because of age between individuals 40 and over____”); see also Trans World Airlines, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.