Employment Law
A layoff is unlawful if your age was a substantial motivating reason for choosing you. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act protects employees who are 40 or older at employers with five or more employees, and state law says that cutting jobs based on salary can be age discrimination when it falls harder on older workers as a group. A layoff label does not make the decision lawful; the question is how the people who lost their jobs were chosen.
Last updated October 4, 2026.
Layoffs are often presented as purely financial, and many are. But the selection of who goes and who stays is still subject to the same anti-discrimination rules as any other firing. This page explains what an older worker has to show, the evidence that usually matters, the federal rules for releases offered to workers 40 and over, and the notice rules for larger layoffs. For the full list of protected characteristics, see our employment law page.
Government Code section 12926(b) defines age as the chronological age of anyone who has reached a 40th birthday, and section 12926(d) defines an employer as one that regularly employs five or more people. Section 12940(a) makes it unlawful for such an employer to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to discriminate in pay or other terms of employment because of age.
The Judicial Council's jury instruction for age discrimination (CACI 2570) lists the elements:
| Element | In plain terms |
|---|---|
| 1. Covered employer | The defendant was your employer or another covered entity |
| 2. Relationship | You were its employee or applied for a job there |
| 3. Adverse action | You were laid off, fired, not hired, or subjected to another adverse action |
| 4. Age | You were 40 or older at the time |
| 5. Motive | Your age was a substantial motivating reason for the decision |
| 6. Harm | You were harmed |
| 7. Causation | The employer's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm |
Because employers rarely admit an age-based motive, these cases are usually built from circumstances. The instruction's notes explain the three-step process California uses: the employee first makes a basic showing, the employer then states a non-discriminatory reason, and the employee shows that reason is a pretext. One court decision quoted in the instruction's sources describes the basic showing as being over 40, suffering an adverse action, performing satisfactorily, and circumstances suggesting discrimination, for example being replaced by someone significantly younger. The directions add that poor performance is the reason employers most often give.
| Rule | What it means for you | Law |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights Department intake | Within three years of the unlawful act | Gov. Code 12960 |
| Lawsuit after a right-to-sue notice | Within one year from the date of the notice | Gov. Code 12965 |
| Time to consult a lawyer on a separation agreement | At least five business days | Gov. Code 12964.5(b)(4) |
| Time to consider a release of federal age claims | At least 21 days; at least 45 days in a group exit or termination program | 29 U.S.C. 626(f)(1)(F) |
| Time to revoke after signing | At least 7 days; the release is not effective until then | 29 U.S.C. 626(f)(1)(G) |
| Mass layoff notice | 60 days' written notice for 50 or more layoffs within 30 days at a site with 75 or more employees | Lab. Code 1400.5, 1401 |
| Missing mass layoff notice | Back pay and benefits for each day of the violation, up to 60 days or half your days of employment, whichever is smaller | Lab. Code 1402 |
These are the facts that most often decide whether a layoff points to age discrimination.
In Government Code section 12941, the Legislature declared that using salary as the basis for deciding which employees to terminate may be found to be age discrimination if that criterion adversely affects older workers as a group, and that the disparate impact theory of proof may be used in age cases. The same section tells courts to interpret the age discrimination laws broadly and vigorously, comparable to the prohibitions on sex and race discrimination. A layoff that targets the highest-paid positions deserves a close look at who held them. So do selection criteria that were written down only after the layoff.
Being replaced by someone significantly younger is the example the CACI 2570 sources give of circumstances suggesting discrimination. A layoff described as eliminating a position looks different if the duties move to a younger employee or a new hire soon after.
Comments about age, retirement or "fresh energy" by the people who made the decision can be evidence. Government Code section 12923(c) says a discriminatory remark can be relevant circumstantial evidence even if not made in the context of an employment decision or by a decision-maker. If the comments were ongoing, our page on what to do after reporting harassment at work covers that separate claim.
Because satisfactory performance is part of the basic showing, recent reviews, raises and awards matter. Criticism that appears only once the layoff was being planned is worth comparing with the earlier record.
A group program brings in the federal 45-day review period and the written disclosure of job titles and ages under 29 U.S.C. 626(f)(1)(H), and a large enough layoff at a covered site brings in the 60-day notice rule in Labor Code section 1401. Under section 1400.5, a covered establishment is an industrial or commercial facility that employs, or has employed in the past 12 months, 75 or more people, and an employee for these rules is someone employed for at least 6 of the 12 months before notice is due. The notice goes to the affected employees and to the Employment Development Department, the local workforce development board, and the chief elected officials of each city and county where the layoff happens (section 1401(a)). A missing notice is a separate issue from discrimination, but it is worth checking.
For example, imagine a hypothetical 58-year-old account manager at a Glendale insurance brokerage, one of the two highest-paid people on a team of nine. The company announces a "reorganization" and lets go of her and one other manager, aged 61. Both are offered four weeks of pay for a general release with a seven-day signing deadline. Two months later, the company posts a job with most of her former duties under a new title.
Several rules come into play. Because two people were let go together under one program, she may be entitled to 45 days to consider the release, 7 days to revoke it, and a written list of the job titles and ages of those selected and kept. Section 12964.5 gives her at least five business days to consult a lawyer. Choosing the highest earners can be age discrimination under section 12941 if it falls harder on older workers as a group. The reposted job may show the position was not truly eliminated. She has three years to file with the Civil Rights Department.
She asks for her personnel file and the group disclosure in writing and does not sign by the deadline the employer set. None of this tells her whether age was the reason or how a claim would end. It tells her what information she is entitled to before deciding.
It can. The CACI 2570 sources give replacement by someone significantly younger as an example of circumstances that support an inference of discrimination. It is not the only way to show it, and it does not prove discrimination by itself.
It can be. Government Code section 12941 says using salary to decide who is terminated may be found to be age discrimination if it adversely affects older workers as a group.
Yes, if the employer regularly employs five or more people. That is the definition of an employer in Government Code section 12926(d).
If you are 40 or older and the release covers federal age discrimination claims, 29 U.S.C. 626(f)(1)(G) gives you at least 7 days after signing to revoke, and the agreement is not effective until that period ends.
If the Cal-WARN rules applied, Labor Code section 1402 makes the employer liable for back pay and the value of benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days or half the days you were employed, whichever is smaller, reduced by certain payments the employer made.
That depends on the claims and the agreement you make. Our page on who pays the lawyer in a California employment case explains the fee rules under FEHA.
We look closely at the timing of a layoff, the reasons the employer gave, and who was kept, and we explain whether the facts point to age discrimination under California law. Workers anywhere in the county can read about local agencies and courts on our Los Angeles County employment lawyer page. Call (818) 244-9000 or request a consultation.
Our Glendale team can review how you were selected and explain whether California's age discrimination laws apply.
Request a Consultation