U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT

29 U.S.C. § 624

Study by Secretary of Labor; reports to President and Congress; scope of study; implementation of study; transmittal date of reports

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) The Secretary of Labor is directed to undertake an appropriate study of institutional and other arrangements giving rise to involuntary retirement, and report his findings and any appropriate legislative recommendations to the President and to the Congress. Such study shall include—(A) an examination of the effect of the amendment made by section 3(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978 in raising the upper age limitation established by section 631(a) of this title to 70 years of age;(B) a determination of the feasibility of eliminating such limitation;(C) a determination of the feasibility of raising such limitation above 70 years of age; and(D) an examination of the effect of the exemption contained in section 631(c) of this title, relating to certain executive employees, and the exemption contained in section 631(d) of this title, relating to tenured teaching personnel.(2) The Secretary may undertake the study required by paragraph (1) of this subsection directly or by contract or other arrangement.(b) The report required by subsection (a) of this section shall be transmitted to the President and to the Congress as an interim report not later than January 1, 1981, and in final form not later than January 1, 1982.(Pub. L. 90–202, § 5, Dec. 15, 1967, 81 Stat. 604; Pub. L. 95–256, § 6, Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 192.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 3(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, referred to in subsec. (a)(1)(A), is section 3(a) of Pub. L. 95–256, Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 189, which amended section 631 of this title.

Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–256 designated existing provisions as par. (1), added cls. (A) to (D), added par. (2), and added subsec. (b).

Study To Analyze Potential Consequences of Elimination of Mandatory Retirement on Institutions of Higher Education

Pub. L. 99–592, § 6(c), Oct. 31, 1986, 100 Stat. 3344, required the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not later than 12 months after Oct. 31, 1986, to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a study to analyze the potential consequences of the elimination of mandatory retirement on institutions of higher education and to report the results of the study, with recommendations, to the President and to Congress not later than 5 years after Oct. 31, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). “Pons, [7] the United States Supreme Court found a statutory right to a jury in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 624 et seq. One of the reasons it concluded that the ADEA contained the right to a jury was Congress' inclusion of "legal" relief among the…”
Jerome W. HARPRING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cont'l OIL Co., Defendant-Appellee, 628 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1980). “29 U.S.C.A. §§ 624 , 626(a) & (b), 632. The district courts should also be on guard against such manipulation.”
Lynch v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc., 758 F. Supp. 976 (D.N.J. 1991). “Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 624 (a), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.”
Garcia v. Newtown Twp., 819 F. Supp. 2d 416 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “§ 2000e, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 624 , et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, (“PHRA”), 43 P.”
Palmer v. Ticcione, 576 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1978). “95-256, amending § 5 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 624 (1976)."”
Estevez v. Power (D. Nev. 2024). “, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 624 , et 19 seq. The FAC brings six claims under these statutes: (Count I) Unlawful Retaliation under the 20 FSA; (Count II) Unlawful Age Discrimination under the ADEA; (Count III) Disparate Treatment 21 under…”
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.