Many law firms continue to include provisions in their partnership agreements that require a partner to retire upon attaining a certain age. These mandatory retirement clauses are somewhat controversial, often disfavored, and frequently the subject of lawsuits by partners forced to retire, who claim that their retirement is a violation of, among other things, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA). The issues typically turn on whether the partner is within the class of those protected by the ADEA that covers employment/employee relationships.

Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a case of first impression in the Eighth Circuit, decided an appeal concerning a claim by a law firm partner that his mandatory retirement at age 70 violated, inter alia, the ADEA. The issue the court addressed was whether an equity partner in a law firm was a covered employee for purposes of the ADEA.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]