Updated Dec. 12

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation that found a class of older employees at Ohio State University faced age discrimination came as a suit targeting the university for certain practices is moving forward.

The plaintiffs, Julianne Taaffe and Kathryn Moon—administrative and professional staff members at Ohio State's English as a Second Language Program—filed charges with the EEOC and brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 2014. They claimed the university engaged in a pattern of age discrimination and retaliation.

The parallel proceedings are moving forward, but age discrimination claims can face challenges. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act is celebrating its 50th anniversary this week and the Ohio case and other recent disputes, often taken on by the AARP Legal Foundation, highlight the difficulty of tackling discrimination against older workers.

A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision created exceptions that required age lawsuits to prove that age was the motivating factor for discrimination, a higher bar than other civil rights protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the Ohio State case, the EEOC sent letters to the plaintiffs that said an investigation found that throughout 2013 and 2014 affected employees at the university were “ultimately forced to choose between resignation/retirement or being reclassified into less desirable positions.” The evidence suggests that university officials were aware and support the intent to discriminate, according to the letter. The letter notes the commission is engaged in a conciliation agreement with the parties.

In the federal civil case, U.S. District Judge Chelsey Vascura this month ruled the plaintiffs' attorneys—Ohio-based attorney Fred Gittes and a team from the AARP Foundation Litigation—will be allowed to question university officials who tried to block the continued search for evidence of ongoing discrimination policies and practices.

The lawsuit alleged the employment-hiring pattern stems back to 2010, where the executive director of the ESL program referred to the staff as “an extraordinarily change-average population of people almost all of whom are over 50, contemplating retirement (or not) and it's like herding hippos.” The email, which praised a “dynamic 30-something” employee, was forwarded to university officials who did not take action and agreed with the assessment, the lawsuit claimed.

In court documents, the university has denied the allegations, claiming school officials corrected any unlawful or discriminatory behavior. The university, represented by a team from Ice Miller LLP, also has argued that its employees are not covered by federal discrimination law.

Ohio State University said in a statement: “The Ohio State University is committed to hiring a diverse and inclusive work force and providing equal opportunities for all. The university does not tolerate or engage in discrimination in any form. We are studying the EEOC finding and considering all of our options.”

Taaffe and Moon have since been reinstated in their positions but their attorneys claim they lost their position and back wages during the time they were out of work.

There's no certainty the EEOC will sue Ohio State University. However the pending federal civil case is resolved, it will not yield any monetary damages. Any complaint brought by the EEOC or settlement could lead to a monetary reward, as well as requiring measures to prevent future discrimination against older workers, AARP attorney Dara Smith said.

“It's an ongoing pattern and really no indication that it won't happen again in the future,” Smith said about the claims against the university.

The EEOC's letter about Ohio State University age-discrimination claims is posted below:

Read more: