A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Employment discrimination based on age is prohibited by law

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination against employees or job applicants due to their age. It protects people over the age of 40. The federal prohibitions against employment discrimination due to age are administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). California and all other states also have laws and enforcement agencies against similar prohibited job discrimination practices. In California, many employment discrimination claims involve the entertainment industry, with its voluminous numbers of employees in all aspects of the vast industry. In one current case, a 64-year-old former director for the Hallmark Channel’s “Home and Family” program has filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against the producer of the show and the owner of the Hallmark Channel. The main claim is that the producer, Woody Fraser Productions, Inc., fired him due to his advanced age. The complaint alleges a long pattern of harassment by Woody Fraser in which the plaintiff had to endure insulting comments and references to his age. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was replaced by a person under the age of 40 who has inferior qualifications. The Hallmark Channel is accused essentially of failing to get rid of Fraser for engaging in harassment and discrimination. The plaintiff’s allegation of being replaced by someone much younger with inferior qualifications creates at least an initial inference of employment discrimination under both federal and California law. The producer apparently claims that the plaintiff did a bad job as director of the show. The case will enter the discovery phase where each side will engage in a fact-intensive inquiry of each other. In most instances, the court then issues a decision on whether the plaintiff has established a sufficient factual dispute to allow the case to go forward to trial. If the plaintiff’s case gets over that critical hurdle and is approved to go forward to trial, the plaintiff will be in a much stronger position to negotiate for a settlement prior to the start of trial or even sometimes during the trial. Source: Diamond Bar-Walnut, CA. Patch, “Fired TV Shopping Show Director Sues on Age Discrimination”, Mirna Alfonso, Dec. 24, 2015

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.