Pharma Company Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit for $2.4 Million
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently announced a $2.4 million settlement with pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and its subsidiary Lilly USA, LLC to resolve a nationwide age discrimination lawsuit.
According to the EEOC, Lilly implemented an “Early Career” hiring program from 2017-2020 that favored hiring younger millennials over older applicants for pharmaceutical sales rep roles. This alleged conduct violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which prohibits age-based discrimination against applicants and employees over 40.
After an investigation and failed conciliation attempt, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of a class of older sales rep applicants denied positions due to the Early Career program’s age bias. Under the settlement, Lilly will pay $2.4 million to victims of the discrimination and implement training and recruiting reforms.
Age Discrimination Protections
This case is a reminder that age discrimination in hiring remains an endemic issue that impacts older applicants. The ADEA and state laws like Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act (PHRA) prohibit discriminating based on age and limit instances when employers can ask age-related questions.
The ADEA and the PHRA make it illegal for employers to discriminate against individuals over 40 based on their age. Age discrimination can manifest in hiring, promotions, terminations, salaries, and other conditions of employment.
Older workers offer immense value based on their experience, expertise, professionalism, and more. Yet ageism shuts many out of jobs and advancement opportunities. Employees facing age discrimination have legal rights to challenge the misconduct.
As the workforce ages and people stay on the job longer, combating age bias is crucial. Cases like the EEOC’s action against Lilly show that ageist employment practices carry serious legal and financial consequences.