Richard Riordan Was 82 and Still Working. Age Discrimination at Work & What California Employees Need to Know

Richard Riordan was 82 when the Los Angeles Business Journal wrote about him still working hard in Los Angeles. The businessman and former mayor was putting in as many as 50 hours a week at his education-focused nonprofits.

That raises a simple question. If an older worker can still bring experience, energy, and skill to a job, why should age decide what happens to that worker?

Sometimes, age bias is easy to spot. Sometimes it hides behind words like “culture fit,” “fresh energy,” or “restructuring.” And sometimes a layoff looks like a business decision until you look at who lost their jobs and who stayed.

California law gives employees aged 40 or above important protections against workplace discrimination.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, protects employees and job applicants who are 40 or older from discrimination based on age. The protection can apply to hiring, firing, pay, promotions, training, and other employment decisions.

What might that look like in real life?

Think about a 55-year-old employee who has strong reviews and years of experience. A new manager starts calling the worker “old school” and says the company needs “younger energy.” A few months later, the employee loses a promotion to a much younger worker despite having similar or better qualifications.

One comment alone may not prove a legal claim. But the comment may matter when viewed with other facts.

California also recognizes that age discrimination can be subtle. For example, a job posting that limits the amount of experience a person can have or asks for “digital natives” may raise age-discrimination concerns.

So, the real question is not simply, “Am I over 40?”

It is, “Did my age play a role in the decision?”

The age-40 line matters because both federal and California law provide specific protections to workers in this age group. Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the protected group generally includes people who are at least 40 years old.

California’s FEHA also protects workers aged 40 and older. Importantly, age discrimination does not have to look like an employer saying, “We are firing you because you are old.” Real workplace decisions rarely come with such a neat sentence.

Look for patterns instead.

A worker may also have a claim when an employer acts on an incorrect belief about the worker’s age. California’s Civil Rights Department explains that FEHA can protect people who face discrimination because an employer mistakenly believes they are 40 or older.

This is where things can get difficult.

An employee usually needs more than a feeling that something was unfair. The facts matter. Emails, text messages, performance reviews, job postings, pay records, termination documents, and statements from coworkers may all help show what happened.

Consider a simple example.

A 58-year-old manager receives strong performance reviews for years. Then a new supervisor starts describing the team as needing “younger faces.” The manager gets a poor review without a clear reason. A 32-year-old employee takes over many of the manager’s duties. Soon after, the older manager loses the job.

What matters here?

The timing. The comments. The change in performance reviews. The treatment of younger workers. The employer’s stated reason for the decision.

None of these facts automatically proves discrimination. But together, they may help tell the full story.

A California employee looking into an age discrimination lawyer in California may also want to gather these records before discussing the matter in a consultation. Good records can make it easier to understand what happened and what legal options may exist.

A company can have a real business reason for reducing its workforce. Losing money, closing a department, or cutting a product line can lead to layoffs.

But what if the same layoff repeatedly affects older workers?

That question has come up in California cases.

In Foroudi v. The Aerospace Corporation, an employee claimed that a reduction in force served as a cover for age discrimination. He alleged that managers treated him differently before he was selected for the layoff and argued that the reduction was a pretext. The court examined the evidence and the procedural problems surrounding his claims.

That does not mean every age discrimination layoff in California violates the law. It means a “layoff” label does not end the inquiry.

Employees can ask important questions:

• Who was selected?
• Who was kept?
• How old were the employees in comparable positions?
• Were older workers scored differently?
• Did the company follow its own layoff rules?
• Did managers make age-related comments?

Those details can matter.

The Supreme Court has recently issued important decisions about employment discrimination, although the cases below are not direct ADEA age-discrimination cases. That distinction matters.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, decided in 2024, the Court rejected a rule that required an employee to show a “significant” disadvantage from a discriminatory employment action under Title VII. The Court said Title VII does not contain that extra requirement.

Why mention Muldrow here?

Because it shows why courts must start with the words Congress actually used rather than add extra hurdles that do not appear in the law. But Muldrow involved sex discrimination under Title VII, not an age claim under the ADEA or California FEHA. It should not be treated as changing every rule for age-discrimination cases.

Then came Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2025. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule that made certain Title VII plaintiffs from majority groups meet a higher initial burden of proof. The Court said Title VII does not require that extra showing.

Again, Ames was not an age-discrimination case. But it matters because it reinforces a broader point: courts must apply the discrimination statute that governs the claim.

For an employee, that means the details matter. Is the claim under FEHA? The ADEA? Title VII? More than one law? The answer can affect what must be shown.

Past cases can show how courts examine these disputes, but no two cases are exactly alike.

Consider Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. The California Supreme Court reviewed an age-discrimination claim involving a company restructuring. Guz argued that Bechtel’s stated reasons for ending his job were pretexts, pointing to the handling of his position and the younger employees who filled new positions. The court examined the employer’s reasons and the evidence surrounding them.

The lesson is simple.

An employer can make legitimate business decisions. But an employee can also challenge a decision when the evidence suggests that the stated reason may not tell the whole story.

That is why age discrimination lawsuit examples should be treated as examples, not promises of what will happen in another case.

Experience is not a flaw. Neither is being 40, 50, 60, or older.

Richard Riordan’s career is one small reminder that people do not suddenly stop having ideas, skills, or ambition because a birthday passes. But the legal question is more specific: did age play an unlawful role in what happened at work?

If you are trying to understand what happened after a firing, layoff, lost promotion, pay change, or other workplace decision, the facts deserve a close look.

Blair & Ramirez LLP can help you understand your legal options and whether the facts may support an employment discrimination claim. Contact Blair & Ramirez LLP to request a consultation and discuss your situation.

• California generally protects employees and job applicants age 40 and older from age discrimination.
• Age discrimination can appear in hiring, promotions, pay, discipline, termination, and layoffs.
• A layoff can be legitimate, but the employer’s stated reason does not end the inquiry when evidence suggests age may have influenced the decision.
• Emails, reviews, comments, personnel records, and comparisons with younger workers may help explain what happened.
• Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Muldrow and Ames concern Title VII, not the ADEA, but they offer useful guidance about how courts interpret employment-discrimination laws.