Mandatory retirement policies have been a fixture in some industries for decades. But as the workforce grows older and Americans live longer, the ethics - and legality - of setting a mandatory retirement age are facing more scrutiny.

If you're navigating questions about whether a mandatory retirement age is discriminatory or legally enforceable, you're not alone. The answer depends on both the industry and the approach an employer takes. Consulting with an experienced employment attorney can help ensure your policies are compliant from the start.

Understanding the Legal Boundaries of Mandatory Retirement

In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees aged 40 and older from workplace discrimination based on age. This includes hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. California prohibits age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Generally speaking, mandatory retirement policies are prohibited under the ADEA and FEHA. Employers cannot force employees to retire once they reach a certain age, even if the policy is intended to open up opportunities for younger workers. Age alone is not a lawful reason to end someone's employment.

However, there are some narrow exceptions where a mandatory retirement age can still be legally enforced:

• High-level executives: If an employee holds a bona fide executive or high policymaking position and is entitled to a pension over a certain threshold, mandatory retirement at age 65 may be permissible under federal law.
• Public safety roles: Positions like police officers, firefighters, and other first responders may be subject to mandatory retirement. Courts have recognized that the physical demands and high-risk nature of these jobs justify setting a mandatory age for retirement.
• Federally regulated professions: Some industries, like commercial aviation, have federally mandated retirement ages. For example, airline pilots must retire at age 65 under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules.

Outside these exceptions, blanket mandatory retirement policies are not allowed. Employers who impose them risk lawsuits, penalties, and potential damage to their brand and workplace culture.

In California, where state protections against age discrimination are even stronger than federal ones, the risk is even greater. A qualified employment lawyer can help evaluate whether any such policy aligns with applicable federal and state laws.

The Ethical Debate Around Mandatory Retirement

Even when technically legal, mandatory retirement policies raise major ethical concerns. They imply that a person's value in the workplace declines automatically with age - regardless of performance, expertise, or contribution.

Supporters of mandatory retirement argue it ensures leadership turnover, creates space for younger talent, and allows for predictable succession planning. They claim it fosters innovation and diversity by bringing in fresh perspectives. However, critics point out that these goals can - and should - be achieved without resorting to arbitrary age cutoffs.

By setting a mandatory retirement age, employers risk losing valuable institutional knowledge, mentorship, and stability. Workers in their 60s and 70s often bring decades of experience, problem-solving ability, and leadership qualities that younger employees are still developing. Dismissing them solely based on age not only weakens the organization but can also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about older workers being less capable, resistant to change, or burdensome.

Alternatives to Mandatory Retirement Policies

Fortunately, there are better ways to address workforce transitions without imposing a mandatory age for retirement. Employers concerned about long-term planning or leadership turnover have options that are both legally compliant and ethically sound.

Here are some alternatives:

• Performance-based evaluations: Maintain regular, objective performance reviews for employees at all stages of their careers. This ensures that decisions about continued employment are based on ability, not assumptions about age.
• Voluntary phased retirement programs: Offer employees the option to gradually reduce their hours, shift into advisory roles, or mentor younger workers. Voluntary programs respect individual preferences and allow companies to retain valuable knowledge during transitions.
• Succession planning without age discrimination: Develop robust succession plans based on skills, leadership qualities, and organizational needs - not assumptions about how long an employee "should" stay.
• Flexible work arrangements: Offering flexible schedules, consulting roles, or project-based assignments can help older employees stay engaged without forcing them into full retirement.

By focusing on individual capabilities rather than setting a mandatory retirement age, employers can create a workplace that is both legally compliant and genuinely inclusive, which are both great for the bottom line..

Protect Your Business and Your People the Right Way

Setting a mandatory retirement age without a valid legal justification is not only risky - it’s unnecessary. Today's workforce is more diverse than ever, including when it comes to age. Companies that recognize the value of experience, adaptability, and commitment will be the ones that thrive in the modern economy.

If you have concerns about your company’s retirement policies or questions about age discrimination risks, an employment attorney like Jenny Shin can help. Whether you're looking to audit your policies, develop a compliant succession plan, or defend against claims of wrongful termination, our team is ready to guide you.