Source: law/29usc623.law
law 29usc623 cite 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 title ADEA core practices and pension accrual; conditional retirement exceptions url https://www.neochart.com/catalog/federal/labor/title_29/chapter_14/section_623/title29_sec623_27981aa7bdfd/623_prohibition_of_age_discrimination_0001/index.html address catalog/federal/labor/title_29/chapter_14/section_623/title29_sec623_27981aa7bdfd/623_prohibition_of_age_discrimination_0001/index.html source ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623 sha1=b59f5e38ae776db621b64c5b581095e0de3ff128 chars=29783 claim disparate-treatment : covered-employer & protected-age & employment-action & age-causation & !f-exceptions & !good-cause & !public-safety & !executive-retirement gloss Section 623(a)(1) employer claim. The statutory exceptions are conditional defenses, not employer burdens to disprove discrimination in every case. The claimant retains ultimate persuasion; coverage and §626 prerequisites are separate from the merits. claim disparate-impact : covered-employer & protected-age & neutral-practice & age-disparity & !f-exceptions gloss Section 623(a)(2) disparate impact: isolate a neutral employment practice causing a significant age disparity, subject to the route-conditioned f-exceptions and the circuit-specific applicant-coverage constraint below. Intent and Gross treatment causation are not additional impact elements. claim retaliation : (covered-employer | covered-agency | covered-union) & protected-activity & retaliatory-adversity & retaliation-causation gloss Section 623(d) is distinct from age discrimination. The protected conduct is opposition or participation; age bias is not the required retaliatory motive. For employer defendants the claimant must be an employee or applicant; agency defendants cover any individual, and union defendants cover members or applicants for membership, as subsection (d) specifies. The (f)(1)-(2) exceptions do not extend to subsection (d). claim agency-discrimination : covered-agency & agency-practice & protected-age & age-causation & !f-exceptions & !good-cause gloss Section 623(b) referral/classification discrimination; §630(c) defines covered employment agencies. claim union-discrimination : covered-union & union-practice & protected-age & age-causation & !f-exceptions & !good-cause gloss Section 623(c) membership, referral, or causing employer discrimination; §630(d)-(e) define labor-organization coverage. claim age-advertising : covered-advertiser & age-advertisement & !f-exceptions gloss Section 623(e) is a distinct prohibition on age-based notices/advertisements; do not confuse it with retaliation or administrative filing requirements. claim wage-reduction : covered-employer & compliance-wage-reduction & !f-exceptions gloss Section 623(a)(3) independently prohibits reducing an employee wage rate to comply with the ADEA. claim pension-accrual : covered-plan-actor & protected-age & pension-plan & pension-age-reduction & !pension-safeguards gloss Section 623(i)(1) separately prohibits age-based cessation or reduction of defined-benefit accrual or defined-contribution allocations. Its own subsection (i) qualifications govern; f-exceptions is not a blanket defense to this route. The catalogue models the (i)(1) core and identifies (i)(2)-(10) qualifications, not a complete actuarial test for hybrid-plan conversions. constraint applicant-coverage(neutral-practice, impact-applicant-limit) : Apply the outside-applicant construction only when controlling precedent adopts it. type governs gloss Kleber (Seventh Circuit en banc) and Villarreal (Eleventh Circuit en banc) construe (a)(2) to exclude outside applicants. Elsewhere determine controlling law before excluding a claimant; this is not a nationwide statutory exception. The preserved impact-applicant-limit ID is a judicial coverage element and is intentionally absent as an unconditional negative in the claim formula. constraint f-route(f-exceptions, bfoq, rfoa, foreign-law, benefit-plan) : Match each statutory exception to the challenged act and theory under (a), (b), (c), or (e). type governs gloss The f-exceptions gate is satisfied only if one applicable branch is proved. BFOQ requires a necessary age qualification; foreign-law requires an actual foreign-workplace legal conflict; seniority/benefits require all f(2) conditions. RFOA is available only for a legally cognizable disparate-impact theory using a non-age factor, never intentional age discrimination or an age-limited advertisement. Thus rfoa cannot defeat the intentional agency/union/treatment claims merely because the actor offers a business reason. No exception here applies to (d) retaliation or automatically overrides (i). # v0.1: burden-shifting protocol borrowed from Title VII practice (McDonnell Douglas). protocol mcdonnell-douglas proves age-causation stage prima-facie : burden plaintiff production -> raises a rebuttable presumption of discrimination stage employer-reason : burden defendant production -> presumption drops out stage pretext : burden plaintiff persuasion -> merges with the ultimate causation question rule /f3d/924/0718-01 @10698..11145 | When an employee has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to "rebut th[is] presumption of discrimination." Id. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089. To do so, the employer must "produc[e] evidence that" it acted "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id. "This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment." Reeves , 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted). rule /f3d/924/0718-01 @11146..11651 | At the final stage, "the McDonnell Douglas framework - with its presumptions and burdens - disappear[s]." Id. at 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted). The employee must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant[-employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. "The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact" remains with the employee "at all times." Id. gloss Judicial proof protocol: Westmoreland applies McDonnell Douglas to circumstantial ADEA claims in the Fourth Circuit; plaintiff retains ultimate persuasion. The prima-facie facts vary by challenged action. This is not a statutory pleading checklist or a shift of the Gross persuasion burden. element covered-employer : and name Employer coverage and exclusions text @63..100 | It shall be unlawful for an employer- xref 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), (f) | Private employer: industry affecting commerce and at least twenty employees for twenty calendar weeks in the current or preceding year; agents are included. State/political subdivisions are separately included without the twenty-worker floor (Mount Lemmon). Federal government is excluded from this definition; §633a governs separately. Employee-definition exclusions must also be checked. gloss Employer status is statutory, not established merely by quoting §623. Individual liability, sovereign immunity and employment status need jurisdiction-specific analysis; coverage does not itself waive state sovereign immunity. element protected-age : and name Age forty or older text @293..326 | because of such individual's age; xref 29 U.S.C. § 631(a) | The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age. rule /f3d/911/0450-01 @9406..9499 | The ADEA protects workers 40 years of age and older from age-based employment discrimination. gloss The age floor comes from §631, not §623. A comparator or replacement may itself be over forty; substantially younger is the relevant inference, not membership outside the protected class. element employment-action : and name Hiring discharge or employment terms text @101..326 | (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; variant hiring | Refusal to hire or promote. variant discharge | Termination or reduction in force. variant terms | Compensation, terms, conditions or privileges; hostile environment requires the separate judicial severity/pervasiveness inquiry. element age-causation : and name Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment text @293..326 | because of such individual's age; rule /f3d/924/0718-01 @8471..9075 | An employee who alleges that her employer violated this prohibition "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In other words, an employee cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim by showing that age was one of multiple motives for an employer's decision; the employee must prove that the employer would not have fired her in the absence of age discrimination. Id. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343. gloss Gross, 557 U.S. 167 (2009), governs §623(a)(1). A motivating-factor showing alone does not shift persuasion to the employer. Direct and circumstantial proof are available; McDonnell Douglas is a proof framework, not the statute or an inflexible universal pleading checklist. element neutral-practice : and name Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice text @327..564 | (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or rule /f3d/900/0923-01 @11615..11829 | Here the plaintiffs have specifically identified a cause for the disparate impact: Caterpillar's decision to condition benefits on retirement eligibility, a status strongly correlated with age. No more is required. gloss Isolate the practice responsible for the disparity; workforce-wide age imbalance alone is insufficient. O’Brien held a benefits-liquidation rule applied to hundreds of employees actionable even though adopted once. element age-disparity : and name Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity text @327..564 | (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or rule /f3d/900/0923-01 @13216..13685 | A disparate-impact claim involves "employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins , 507 U.S. 604, 609, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs must demonstrate a "significant" age-based disparity to establish a prima facie case. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC , 849 F.3d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 2017). gloss Statistical comparison must fit the affected labor pool and challenged practice. O’Brien recognizes older-subgroup comparisons within the over-forty class; do not present that circuit treatment as a universal rule. element impact-applicant-limit : and name Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls text @327..564 | (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or rule /f3d/914/0480-01 @2643..2746 | By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its protection to employees. gloss Kleber en banc (7th Cir. 2019) excludes outside applicants from §623(a)(2), consistent with the Eleventh Circuit; §623(a)(1) treatment claims for applicants remain available. This jurisdiction-sensitive boundary is part of neutral-practice coverage, not a bar to all ADEA hiring claims. defense rfoa : defense name Reasonable factors other than age text @3423..3494 | where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age rule /f3d/900/0923-01 @19946..20847 | The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, but Caterpillar raises an affirmative defense that its liquidation plan is based on a reasonable factor other than age. To prevail Caterpillar must show that its less favorable treatment of retirement-eligible employees was "reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer." 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(e)(1). This is a "relatively light burden." Karlo , 849 F.3d at 80. "Unlike the [Title VII] business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement." Smith , 544 U.S. at 243, 125 S.Ct. 1536. xref 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(a)-(d) | The statutory (a), (b), (c), (e) reach is subject to the regulatory exclusion of disparate treatment and practices using age as a limiting criterion. gloss The employer bears production and persuasion on this affirmative defense (Meacham, 554 U.S. 84). Reasonableness differs from Title VII business necessity and does not demand the least discriminatory alternative. RFOA is not permission for intentional age discrimination. element protected-activity : and name Opposition or participation text @1750..2342 | It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter. variant opposition | Opposing an ADEA-unlawful practice; judicial good-faith/reasonableness limits apply. variant participation | Charge, testimony, assistance or participation in ADEA investigation, proceeding or litigation. element retaliatory-adversity : and name Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation text @1750..2342 | It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter. rule /f3d/921/0030-01 @36726..37086 | Rather, a plaintiff may recover for retaliation by "show[ing] that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse , which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination ." Id . at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (internal quotation marks omitted (emphases ours)). gloss Davis-Garett applies Burlington Northern: harm need not change employment terms, but trivial slights do not suffice. Evaluate context and employer knowledge of protected conduct. element retaliation-causation : and name Retaliatory causal connection text @1750..2342 | It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter. gloss Require causal connection between protected conduct known to defendant and material adversity; ultimate retaliation liability requires the applicable but-for standard, not merely chronological sequence. Davis-Garett addresses the adversity standard, not an independent holding relaxing ultimate causation. element covered-agency : and name Covered employment agency text @679..724 | It shall be unlawful for an employment agency xref 29 U.S.C. § 630(c) | A person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer, including an agent; statutory federal exclusion applies. element agency-practice : and name Agency referral discrimination text @647..947 | (b) Employment agency practices It shall be unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual's age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual's age. element covered-union : and name Covered labor organization text @981..1027 | It shall be unlawful for a labor organization- xref 29 U.S.C. § 630(d)-(e) | Labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce, including covered agents and enumerated organizational forms; §630(e) supplies coverage alternatives. element union-practice : or name Membership classification referral or causing discrimination text @1028..1148 | (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his age; text @1149..1538 | (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's age; text @1539..1651 | (3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section. variant membership | Exclusion, expulsion or discrimination under §623(c)(1). variant referral | §623(c)(2) classification or referral affecting employment opportunity. variant inducement | §623(c)(3) causing or attempting employer discrimination. element covered-advertiser : and name Employer agency or union advertiser text @2438..2536 | It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish gloss Apply the relevant §630 covered-entity definition; employer-only numerical coverage is not imposed on every kind of entity. element age-advertisement : and name Age-based notice or advertisement text @2438..2919 | It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age. element compliance-wage-reduction : and name Wage reduction to comply text @565..646 | (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter. exception bfoq : exception name Narrow bona fide occupational qualification text @3295..3418 | where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business gloss Section 623(f)(1) statutory defense; employer must justify age qualification, not rely on stereotypes or ordinary preference. Detailed safety/BFOQ evidentiary variants are outside this core catalogue. exception benefit-plan : exception name Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan text @3758..3857 | (2) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section- text @3858..4164 | (A) to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system that is not intended to evade the purposes of this chapter, except that no such seniority system shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 631(a) of this title because of the age of such individual; or text @4165..4227 | (B) to observe the terms of a bona fide employee benefit plan- text @4228..4536 | (i) where, for each benefit or benefit package, the actual amount of payment made or cost incurred on behalf of an older worker is no less than that made or incurred on behalf of a younger worker, as permissible under section 1625.10, title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on June 22, 1989); or text @4537..5287 | (ii) that is a voluntary early retirement incentive plan consistent with the relevant purpose or purposes of this chapter. Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B), no such employee benefit plan or voluntary early retirement incentive plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual, and no such employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 631(a) of this title, because of the age of such individual. An employer, employment agency, or labor organization acting under subparagraph (A), or under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B), shall have the burden of proving that such actions are lawful in any civil enforcement proceeding brought under this chapter; or gloss Statutory alternatives: (A) a bona fide seniority system without an evasion purpose; (B)(i) the prescribed equal-benefit/cost condition or (B)(ii) a voluntary early-retirement incentive consistent with the Act. The defendant bears proof. Both seniority and benefits forbid age-based involuntary retirement as stated; the additional failure-to-hire prohibition applies to (B), not automatically to every seniority system. Pension accrual compliance belongs in pension-safeguards, not an unconditional f(2) exemption. exception good-cause : exception name Discipline for good cause text @5288..5358 | (3) to discharge or otherwise discipline an individual for good cause. gloss §623(f)(3) applies only to discharge or discipline for good cause; a nondiscriminatory explanation can be rebutted as pretext. This exception does not shift the claimant’s ultimate Gross burden. exception foreign-law : exception name Foreign workplace conflict with local law text @3499..3757 | where such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance with such subsections would cause such employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located; gloss §623(f)(1); also inspect §623(h) control and foreign-employer rules and §630(f) citizenship coverage. Mere foreign business convenience is not statutory conflict. element enforcement : and name Charge filing waiver and remedies text @101..326 | (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; xref 29 U.S.C. § 626(b)-(f) | EEOC enforcement and conciliation; civil action and jury right; charge generally within 180 days or applicable §633(b) 300-day/30-day earlier deadline, and 60-day wait. §626(e) includes 90-day suit period after specified notice. Willful violations support liquidated damages; §626(f) sets knowing-voluntary waiver conditions, including OWBPA protections. rule /f3d/911/0450-01 @16385..16759 | Under the so-called Ricks rule, the clock for this limitations period commences "when an employer communicates an adverse employment decision to the employee, not when the full consequences of that action are felt." Gustovich v. AT&T Commc'ns, Inc. , 972 F.2d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Del. State Coll. v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) ). gloss Enforcement is not another merits element. Wrolstad applied a 300-day deferral-state deadline to unequivocal notice of a threat to sue. Federal §633a procedures and Babb causation are separate; see NOTES scope map. exception f-exceptions : exception name Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives text @3195..3294 | (1) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section variant qualification | Apply bfoq only to the necessary occupational age qualification. variant other-factor | Apply rfoa only to a legally cognizable impact theory; unavailable for intentional treatment or using age itself as the limit. variant foreign-conflict | Apply foreign-law only where compliance would violate the specified foreign workplace law. variant seniority-benefit | Apply benefit-plan only to observing a qualifying system/plan and subject to its hiring/retirement limits and defendant burden. gloss Conditional gate for (a), (b), (c), (e), including agency, union and advertising routes. This is a disjunction of applicable defenses, not an assumption that every actor has every defense. Benefit coordination under (l)-(n) requires separate specialist analysis as disclosed in catalogue-scope. element pension-plan : and name Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan text @6489..6735 | (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, it shall be unlawful for an employer, an employment agency, a labor organization, or any combination thereof to establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan which requires or permits- xref 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(i)(9), 1002 | ERISA definitions supply pension, defined-benefit, defined-contribution and normal-retirement-age meanings. element pension-age-reduction : or name Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction text @6736..6908 | (A) in the case of a defined benefit plan, the cessation of an employee's benefit accrual, or the reduction of the rate of an employee's benefit accrual, because of age, or text @6909..7113 | (B) in the case of a defined contribution plan, the cessation of allocations to an employee's account, or the reduction of the rate at which amounts are allocated to an employee's account, because of age. variant defined-benefit | Cessation of accrual or reduction of accrual rate because of age under (i)(1)(A). variant defined-contribution | Cessation of account allocations or reduction of allocation rate because of age under (i)(1)(B). exception pension-safeguards : exception name Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance text @9316..9531 | (4) Compliance with the requirements of this subsection with respect to an employee pension benefit plan shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section relating to benefit accrual under such plan. rule /f3d/887/0799-01 @10243..10328 | In other words, a pension plan that complies with § 623(i) does not violate the ADEA. variant age-neutral-cap | (i)(2) permits benefit or service/participation limits imposed without regard to age. variant distribution-adjustment | (i)(3) credits the prescribed actuarial equivalent of in-service distribution or the specified delayed-distribution adjustment, subject to Treasury regulations. variant compensated-employee | (i)(5) applies only to the regulatory extent necessary to prevent discrimination favoring highly compensated employees. variant subsidies-and-normal-age | (i)(6)-(8) govern disregarded early-retirement subsidies, permitted (m) plans, incorporated Treasury regulations and the specified normal-retirement-age rule. variant younger-comparison | (i)(10)(A) permits comparison with an otherwise identical younger participant, using the prescribed accrued-benefit measures and subsidy disregard. variant hybrid-and-offset | (i)(10)(B)-(G) impose special hybrid-plan interest, capital, conversion and termination conditions and specified offset/disparity and preservation rules; a plan cannot invoke these as unconditional permission to reduce accrual because of age. gloss These are conditional statutory qualifications, not an actuarial compliance finding. Teufel's pinned sentence supports (i)(4) compliance, not a freestanding f(2) defense. An (i)(1) assessment must examine all relevant (i)(2)-(10) conditions; this core formula does not independently model every hybrid-conversion violation. exception public-safety : exception name Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement text @19308..19677 | (j) Employment as firefighter or law enforcement officer It shall not be unlawful for an employer which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate agency to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual because of such individual's age if such action is taken- text @19678..19995 | (1) with respect to the employment of an individual as a firefighter or as a law enforcement officer, the employer has complied with section 3(d)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1996 2 if the individual was discharged after the date described in such section, and the individual has attained- text @19996..20301 | (A) the age of hiring or retirement, respectively, in effect under applicable State or local law on March 3, 1983; or (B)(i) if the individual was not hired, the age of hiring in effect on the date of such failure or refusal to hire under applicable State or local law enacted after September 30, 1996; or text @20302..20427 | (ii) if applicable State or local law was enacted after September 30, 1996, and the individual was discharged, the higher of- text @20428..20530 | (I) the age of retirement in effect on the date of such discharge under such law; and (II) age 55; and text @20531..20648 | (2) pursuant to a bona fide hiring or retirement plan that is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this chapter. xref 29 U.S.C. § 630(j)-(k); Pub. L. 104-208, div. A, title I, § 101(a) [title I, § 119[2(d)(2)]] | Apply statutory firefighter/officer definitions. OLRC identifies this as the probable intended reference for §3(d)(2). Its annual opportunity to pass a fitness test to continue employment is triggered by issuance of the specified HHS regulations; check that trigger rather than assuming issuance. Also apply the §119[1(c)] restriction on intermediate 1983–1996 laws lowering hiring/retirement ages. The statutory age/date alternatives and bona fide non-subterfuge plan remain necessary. gloss Limited to the enumerated governmental employers, occupations, and hiring/discharge acts. It is not a general public-sector or public-safety BFOQ and does not excuse unrelated employment terms or retaliation. exception executive-retirement : exception name Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement text @134..161 | to discharge any individual xref 29 U.S.C. § 631(c)(1)-(2) | Employee must be at least 65 and have held a bona fide executive or high-policymaking position for the immediately preceding two years, with an immediate nonforfeitable annual employer-plan retirement benefit aggregating at least $44,000. Apply EEOC straight-life-annuity equivalence adjustments for other forms and employee/rollover contributions. gloss Cross-section statutory exception only to qualifying compulsory retirement; no exemption from all discrimination protections for anyone called an executive. The §623 text anchor is the discharge hook, not a fabricated §631 quotation. element catalogue-scope : and name Displayed scope and specialized exclusions text @0..39 | §623. Prohibition of age discrimination gloss Models core (a)-(f) practices, (i)(1) pension accrual with conditional (i) safeguards, (j) public-safety and §631(c) executive retirement. Full (l)-(n) benefit-coordination and tenured-faculty incentive rules, detailed (i)(10) actuarial/conversion claims, and federal-sector §633a litigation remain outside these core formulas. Foreign-employer/control coverage under (h), §630 citizenship/employee definitions and enforcement prerequisites must also be checked; none is displaced by these merits formulas. element covered-plan-actor : and name Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan text @6567..6650 | an employer, an employment agency, a labor organization, or any combination thereof gloss Section 623(i)(1) identifies these pension-plan actors independently of advertising. Apply the relevant §630 entity definitions; no notice, advertisement or publication is required.