29 U.S.C. § 633a

Nondiscrimination on account of age in Federal Government employment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Federal agencies affected

All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age (except personnel actions with regard to aliens employed outside the limits of the United States) in military departments as defined in section 102 of title 5, in executive agencies as defined in section 105 of title 5 (including employees and applicants for employment who are paid from nonappropriated funds), in the United States Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission, in those units in the government of the District of Columbia having positions in the competitive service, and in those units of the judicial branch of the Federal Government having positions in the competitive service, in the Smithsonian Institution, and in the Government Publishing Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Library of Congress shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.

(b) Enforcement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and by Librarian of Congress in the Library of Congress; remedies; rules, regulations, orders, and instructions of Commission: compliance by Federal agencies; powers and duties of Commission; notification of final action on complaint of discrimination; exemptions: bona fide occupational qualificationExcept as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is authorized to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without backpay, as will effectuate the policies of this section. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall issue such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under this section. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall—(1) be responsible for the review and evaluation of the operation of all agency programs designed to carry out the policy of this section, periodically obtaining and publishing (on at least a semiannual basis) progress reports from each department, agency, or unit referred to in subsection (a);(2) consult with and solicit the recommendations of interested individuals, groups, and organizations relating to nondiscrimination in employment on account of age; and(3) provide for the acceptance and processing of complaints of discrimination in Federal employment on account of age.The head of each such department, agency, or unit shall comply with such rules, regulations, orders, and instructions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which shall include a provision that an employee or applicant for employment shall be notified of any final action taken on any complaint of discrimination filed by him thereunder. Reasonable exemptions to the provisions of this section may be established by the Commission but only when the Commission has established a maximum age requirement on the basis of a determination that age is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the performance of the duties of the position. With respect to employment in the Library of Congress, authorities granted in this subsection to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be exercised by the Librarian of Congress.(c) Civil actions; jurisdiction; relief

Any person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any Federal district court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

(d) Notice to Commission; time of notice; Commission notification of prospective defendants; Commission elimination of unlawful practices

When the individual has not filed a complaint concerning age discrimination with the Commission, no civil action may be commenced by any individual under this section until the individual has given the Commission not less than thirty days’ notice of an intent to file such action. Such notice shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred. Upon receiving a notice of intent to sue, the Commission shall promptly notify all persons named therein as prospective defendants in the action and take any appropriate action to assure the elimination of any unlawful practice.

(e) Duty of Government agency or official

Nothing contained in this section shall relieve any Government agency or official of the responsibility to assure nondiscrimination on account of age in employment as required under any provision of Federal law.

(f) Applicability of statutory provisions to personnel action of Federal departments, etc.

Any personnel action of any department, agency, or other entity referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall not be subject to, or affected by, any provision of this chapter, other than the provisions of sections 626(d)(3) and 631(b) of this title and the provisions of this section.

(g) Study and report to President and Congress by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; scope(1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall undertake a study relating to the effects of the amendments made to this section by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, and the effects of section 631(b) of this title.(2) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall transmit a report to the President and to the Congress containing the findings of the Commission resulting from the study of the Commission under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Such report shall be transmitted no later than January 1, 1980.(Pub. L. 90–202, § 15, as added Pub. L. 93–259, § 28(b)(2), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 74; amended Pub. L. 95–256, § 5(a), (e), Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 191; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, § 2, 43 F.R. 19807, 92 Stat. 3781; Pub. L. 104–1, title II, § 201(c)(2), Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 8; Pub. L. 105–220, title III, § 341(b), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1092; Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 109–435, title VI, § 604(f), Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3242; Pub. L. 111–2, § 5(c)(3), Jan. 29, 2009, 123 Stat. 7; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, § 1301(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The amendments made to this section by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, referred to in subsec. (g)(1), are amendments by section 5(a) and (e) of Pub. L. 95–256, which amended subsecs. (a), (f), and (g) of this section.

Amendments

2009—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 111–2 substituted “of sections 626(d)(3) and” for “of section”.

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–435 substituted “Postal Regulatory Commission” for “Postal Rate Commission”.

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “Government Accountability Office” for “General Accounting Office”.

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–220 inserted “in the Smithsonian Institution,” before “and in the Government Printing Office”.

1995—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–1 substituted “units of the judicial branch” for “units of the legislative and judicial branches” and inserted “Government Printing Office, the General Accounting Office, and the” before “Library of Congress”.

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–256, § 5(a), inserted age requirement of at least 40 years of age, and “personnel actions” after “except”.

Subsecs. (f), (g). Pub. L. 95–256, § 5(e), added subsecs. (f) and (g).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“Government Publishing Office” substituted for “Government Printing Office” in subsec. (a) on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–2 effective as if enacted May 28, 2007, and applicable to certain claims of discrimination in compensation pending on or after that date, see section 6 of Pub. L. 111–2, set out as a note under section 2000e–5 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–220, title III, § 341(d), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1092, which provided that amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) (amending this section, section 791 of this title, and section 2000e–16 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare) would take effect on Aug. 7, 1998, and would be applicable to and may be raised in any administrative or judicial claim or action brought before Aug. 7, 1998, but pending on such date, and any administrative or judicial claim or action brought after Aug. 7, 1998, regardless of whether the claim or action arose prior to such date, if the claim or action was brought within the applicable statute of limitations, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–128, title V, § 511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705.

Effective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–1 effective 1 year after Jan. 23, 1995, see section 1311(e) of Title 2, The Congress.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–256, § 5(f), Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 192, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 8335 and 8339 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and repealing section 3322 of Title 5] shall take effect on September 30, 1978, except that section 15(g) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended by subsection (e) of this section [subsec. (g) of this section], shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 6, 1978].”

Effective Date

Section effective May 1, 1974, see section 29(a) of Pub. L. 93–259, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 202 of this title.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

“Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” substituted for “Civil Service Commission” in subsecs. (b) and (g) pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, § 2, 43 F.R. 19807, 92 Stat. 3781, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which transferred all functions vested by this section in Civil Service Commission to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, effective Jan. 1, 1979, as provided by section 1–101 of Ex. Ord. No. 12106, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1053.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 986 cases (217 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981). · cites it 27× “Thus, if Congress waives the Government's immunity from suit, as it has in the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 633a (1976 ed. and Supp. III), the plaintiff has a right to a trial by jury only where that right is one of "the terms of [the Government's] consent to be sued.”

Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 32× “By contrast, a federal employee who believes he has been discriminated against because of age has two options under 29 U.S.C. § 633a (2000). First, he may file an administrative action directly with the EEOC.”

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008). · cites it 11× “What Jackson said about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of Title IX can be said as well about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, 29 U. S. C. § 633a. Sullivan was decided in 1969 and §633a was enacted in…”

Rann v. Chao, 209 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 29× “29 U.S.C. § 633a; Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v.”

John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton, 687 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 17× “After being dismissed on his sixty-fifth birthday, Miller brought suit alleging that his forced retirement violated the federal employment provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. Accepting the State Department’s position, the district…”

Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020). · cites it 5× “I join the majority opinion because I agree that 29 U.S.C. § 633a imposes liability even when age is not a " 'but-for cause' " of a personnel action.”

Stevens v. Dep't of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1 (1991). · cites it 14× “74 , and amended, 29 U. S. C. § 633a. I Petitioner Charles Z.”

Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4044 (2017). · cites it 2× “§§ 2000e-16(c), 2000e-5(f) ; 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c) ; § 216(b)). Thus, if the MSPB decides against the employee on the merits of a mixed case, the statute instructs her to seek review in federal district court under the enforcement provision of the relevant antidiscrimination laws.”

James Reynolds v. Daniel M. Tangherlini, 737 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 9× “Reynolds sued the GSA Administrator alleging that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of age in violation of the “federal sector” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. He also brought claims under Title VII of the Civil…”

Jeffrey Plaskett v. Christine Wormuth, 18 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “See 29 U.S.C. § 633a. That statute establishes a general requirement that federal personnel decisions “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age,” id.”

Forman, Paul v. Small, Lawrence M., 271 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 7× “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Paul Forman appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Smithsonian Institution on his claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a (1994 & Supp. V 1999). He contends that he…”

Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “Notably, Congress expressly made the new provisions (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 633a) applicable to both employees and “applicants for employment.”

Show all 986 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(0) — 1 case

Marinelli v. Potter, 661 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2009).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) — 339 cases

Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020). “I join the majority opinion because I agree that 29 U.S.C. § 633a imposes liability even when age is not a " 'but-for cause' " of a personnel action.”

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008). “What Jackson said about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of Title IX can be said as well about the relationship between Sullivan and the enactment of the ADEA’s federal-sector provision, 29 U. S. C. § 633a. Sullivan was decided in 1969 and §633a was enacted in…”

John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton, 687 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “After being dismissed on his sixty-fifth birthday, Miller brought suit alleging that his forced retirement violated the federal employment provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. Accepting the State Department’s position, the district…”

Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016). “Notably, Congress expressly made the new provisions (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 633a) applicable to both employees and “applicants for employment.”

Forman, Paul v. Small, Lawrence M., 271 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Paul Forman appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Smithsonian Institution on his claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a (1994 & Supp. V 1999). He contends that he…”

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b) — 144 cases

Jeffrey Plaskett v. Christine Wormuth, 18 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 29 U.S.C. § 633a. That statute establishes a general requirement that federal personnel decisions “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age,” id.”

Stevens v. Dep't of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1 (1991). “74 , and amended, 29 U. S. C. § 633a. I Petitioner Charles Z.”

Rann v. Chao, 154 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2001).

Rann v. Chao, 209 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 633a; Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v.”

Philip J. Podobnik v. United States Postal Serv. Nat'l Rural Letter Carriers Ass'n John E. Potter, Postmaster Gen. of the United States, 409 F.3d 584 (3rd Cir. 2005).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b)(3) — 5 cases

Rann, Robert W. v. Chao, Elaine, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

James Reynolds v. Daniel M. Tangherlini, 737 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013). “Reynolds sued the GSA Administrator alleging that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of age in violation of the “federal sector” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. He also brought claims under Title VII of the Civil…”

Greenlee v. United States Postal Serv., 247 F. App'x 953 (10th Cir. 2007).

Rizas v. Dejoy (D.N.J. 2022).

Auth. of the Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n to Conduct Defensive Litig. (OLC 1984).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c) — 169 cases

Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4044 (2017). “§§ 2000e-16(c), 2000e-5(f) ; 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c) ; § 216(b)). Thus, if the MSPB decides against the employee on the merits of a mixed case, the statute instructs her to seek review in federal district court under the enforcement provision of the relevant antidiscrimination laws.”

Elgin v. Dep't of the Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012).

Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556 (1st Cir. 2005).

Rossiter v. Potter, 357 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2004).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d) — 207 cases

Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2007). “By contrast, a federal employee who believes he has been discriminated against because of age has two options under 29 U.S.C. § 633a (2000). First, he may file an administrative action directly with the EEOC.”

Rann v. Chao, 209 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 633a; Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v.”

Philip J. Podobnik v. United States Postal Serv. Nat'l Rural Letter Carriers Ass'n John E. Potter, Postmaster Gen. of the United States, 409 F.3d 584 (3rd Cir. 2005).

Rann, Robert W. v. Chao, Elaine, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(e) — 9 cases

Vaughan v. Must, Inc., 542 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 1996).

More v. Snow, 480 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C. 2007).

Price, John A. v. Bernanke, Ben, 470 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Anderson v. Spellings, 20 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2013).

Rodriguez v. Donovan, 922 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2013).

— 29 U.S.C. § 633a(f) — 51 cases

Bess Kennedy v. William H. Whitehurst, Acting Dir., Dep't of Human Servs., 690 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

John H. Lewis v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., a Corp. Chartered Under the Laws of the United States, 953 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir. 1992).

Jane DiCocco v. Merrick Garland, 52 F.4th 588 (4th Cir. 2022).

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.