29 C.F.R. § 1625.21
Apprenticeship programs
All apprenticeship programs, including those apprenticeship programs created or maintained by joint labor-management organizations, are subject to the prohibitions of sec. 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623. Age limitations in apprenticeship programs are valid only if excepted under sec. 4(f)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), or exempted by the Commission under sec. 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 628, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1625.30.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Coleman v. New Orleans & Baton Rouge S.S. Pilots' Ass'n, 437 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2006).
Coleman v. New Orleans & Baton Rouge S.S. Pilots' Ass'n, 437 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2006). “Coleman notes that the EEOC specifically referred to 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 in finding that cause existed to believe that Coleman was discriminated against because of his age.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Seafarers Int'l Union, 394 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2005). “13 (1995), with 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 (2004) (exemption from ADEA for “bona fide” apprenticeships removed by extension of the Act’s strictures to all apprenticeships).”
Coleman v. Crescent River Port (5th Cir. 2006). “Coleman asserts that Ehret is no longer controlling law because the post-Ehret promulgation of 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 clarified that NOBRA and Crescent are employers at least with respect to the apprenticeship program.”
Pierce (D. Del. 2026). “The EEOC issued a regulation in 1996 stating that the ADEA should be construed as covering “apprenticeship programs,” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 , but Plaintiff does not argue that the Academy qualifies as an “apprenticeship program” beyond one short and undeveloped allegation in…”
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.