Menu
A forced exit based solely on your age can feel emotionally jarring, as it undermines years of professional experience. Mandatory retirement age discrimination in Washington, DC, is treated far more seriously than many employees realize, and far more strictly than federal law alone might suggest. DC law imposes strict limits on when and whether an employer may impose age-based retirement requirements. Knowing where those limits exist can help employees recognize unlawful practices early and take informed steps to protect their livelihoods.
A mandatory retirement age is a policy an employer may implement that requires employees to retire or leave their position upon reaching a specified age. The policy does not take into account the employee’s performance or ability to perform their job. This type of policy may be explicit or implied.
There are several ways an employer may implement an age-based policy:
Sometimes, a mandatory retirement age policy can be an informal practice. While there isn’t a formal policy, there is still a practice of automatically initiating retirement discussions for employees when they reach a certain age. There may be a policy that conditions continued employment based on age milestones.
Policies requiring retirement helped employers with workforce planning and succession management. It was a way to create and predict vacancies. The newly opened positions allow for promotion opportunities for younger employees. Modern discrimination law now rejects age-based assumptions about productivity or succession readiness.
Certain positions are viewed as physically demanding. They require peak physical and cognitive ability. Employers assume these skills decline with age, making the role more dangerous. Age-based assumptions about decline are no longer sufficient to justify forced retirement. A mandatory retirement age was often connected to pension plans. Or employer-sponsored retirement plans. These plans had age-based eligibility thresholds. However, modern changes to employment practices and employee demographics have weakened this justification.
The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provides blanket protection. It protects employees and applicants aged 40 or older. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees. This includes private employers and governments. The statute protects against age discrimination during hiring, termination, and compensation decisions. Mandatory retirement policies are generally unlawful under the ADEA. Forcing employees to retire solely based on age constitutes age discrimination. Courts evaluate these policies strictly, particularly when they apply regardless of job performance or ability.
There are exceptions to ADEA’s protections. It allows mandatory retirement for bona fide executives or high-level policy makers. To qualify for the exception, the employee must have held the position for a specific period and be entitled to a substantial retirement benefit. This exception applies only to employees in senior roles. Giving an employee a senior title isn’t enough. Compensation level and actual authority matter more than job labels.
Some public safety positions are also exempt under the ADEA. These roles are typically in law enforcement or fire protection. Even in these roles, mandatory retirement is not automatic and must align with governing statutory schemes. Even when qualifying for an exemption, the court views them narrowly. Employers have the burden of showing that the exemption is justified and necessary.
While federal law sets the minimum level of protection, state laws build on it. The DC Human Rights Act is a comprehensive law that protects people in Washington, DC, against multiple forms of discrimination. It covers employment, housing, and public accommodations. It covers a lengthy list of protected classes.
The act makes it illegal to treat someone unfairly solely because of their membership in a protected class. Unlike the ADEA, it doesn’t have a 40-year age limit. This results in broader protections that cover employees of any age. It also has a broader employer application. Employers with one or more employees must adhere. Independent contractors may also receive protection depending on the nature of the working relationship.
Courts take a critical view of age-based employer policies. There is an assumption that mandatory retirement policies are discriminatory. It’s the employer’s responsibility to show a legal justification tied to the employee’s position for the policy. DC courts favor individual assessment and application over a blanket company-wide policy.
There are exceptions to every rule. Under Washington, DC law, there is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception. It enables employers to have age-based policies if they can establish that the age is reasonably necessary for the normal operation of the business and the job cannot be performed safely or effectively with less discriminatory means.
It’s rare for an employer to succeed under the BEOQ exception. Employers shouldn’t rely on industry or cultural assumptions about age to justify their policies. Courts take a strict view when considering age-based policies. An employer needs to provide concrete, science-based, and job-related evidence. The evidence must directly address the core job functions and how age affects an employee’s ability to perform in the role. Assumed or perceived risks aren’t enough. While courts don’t permit a broad application of the BFOQ, some industries are recognized as inherently dangerous. These are typically professions involved in public safety. Examples include firefighters, law enforcement officers, and pilots.
Working with an employment attorney can help employers avoid the common mistake that can lead to liability. For example, one of the most common mistakes is relying solely on the ADEA and not accounting for the DC Human Rights Act. Because the DC law provides broader coverage, an employer could comply with federal law while violating DC law. Employers can easily fall into the trap of using age as a cutoff. Instead of relying on age, they should use performance evaluations, fitness-for-duty assessments, or medical or competency testing where appropriate.
It’s a common mistake to rely on the industry standard or “what’s always been done” when creating policies. Just because others use mandatory retirement policies does not mean they are legally allowed. Employers should avoid relying on legacy contracts, long standard partnership agreements, or handbook policies that have not been updated. Tradition is not a defense. Another common mistake is not tailoring age-based policies narrowly enough. A policy could be allowed for a specific position, but the employer made it company-wide. It’s also a mistake not to have individualized assessment mechanisms in place.
A mandatory retirement age policy can be the source of disputes between employers and employees. Employers often underestimate the strictness of federal and DC laws. What company leadership may view as a reasonable business practice can turn into an age discrimination claim. Crowley works with clients on both sides of these disputes. Its experienced legal team provides insight and advice on relevant anti-discrimination laws. Contact us today to schedule a consultation to learn how we can help.
© 2026 Crowley So, LLP
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm
Share