U.S. EEOC charge data · FY1997–FY2020 · The tech litigation record

The 40+ cut

Federal law has protected workers age 40 and older since 1967. This is what the paper trail of age-discrimination charges actually shows — nationally, by state, and in the lawsuits that put Silicon Valley's hiring and layoff machines on the record.

Age-based charges filed with the EEOC, nationwide

receipts per fiscal year · ADEA & concurrent

24,582

Peak age charges in a single year — FY2008, as the recession hit older workers

~20K

Age charges filed in a typical year over the past two decades

$76–90M

Recovered for age-charge victims each year, FY2016–FY2020

3%

Share of older workers who ever file a formal complaint — vast underreporting

01

The national curve bends with the economy

Age charges spike when layoffs spike. Filings jumped to a record 24,582 in FY2008 and stayed above 22,000 through the recession years, then drifted down through the late 2010s — not because bias eased, but partly because charge volume fell across every category and older workers report at very low rates.

02

Where the charges come from

EEOC does not break charges out by industry — so there is no official "tech-sector" count. What it does publish is geography. The big-population, big-tech states lead by raw volume; in California, age claims also make up an unusually high share — about a quarter — of all charges filed.

Top states by age-based charges

FY2013 · count of charges citing age

charges citing age (FY2013) major tech-employment hub

03

The money the agency recovers

Through mediation, conciliation and settlements, the EEOC pulls back roughly $76–90 million a year for people whose charges include age claims — about a fifth to a quarter of all the money it recovers. This is administrative recovery only; it excludes private lawsuit settlements like the ones below.

Age-based monetary benefits secured by the EEOC

FY2016–FY2020 · $ millions · administrative process

04

Is tech actually different?

You can't filter EEOC charges by employer — those are confidential. So instead, compare who tech actually employs. Across 18 well-known tech firms, the median worker is about 30. Not one reaches the U.S. workforce median of ~42, and most sit below even the youngest major industry sector. The Google class action cited exactly this number: a median employee age of 29.

0 of 18

Named tech firms whose median worker reaches the U.S. workforce median age

~10 yrs

Gap between the typical big-tech median (~31) and the national workforce (~42)

Median employee age — 18 named tech employers vs. the U.S. workforce

PayScale survey (c. 2016) · age in years

company median age U.S. workforce median (BLS, 41.7) youngest major industry: leisure & hospitality (32.3)

Read this carefully: these are workforce-composition figures, not charge data. A younger median age is not proof of discrimination — it reflects company age, growth rate, hiring and attrition. But it is the exact structural gap the lawsuits point to. Median ages are from PayScale's survey of ~33,500 tech workers (non-retail/sales), c. 2016 — the most-cited cross-company dataset, but dated and self-reported. The U.S. workforce median (BLS, 41.7 in 2024) has been essentially flat since 2014, so the comparison holds across the period.

05

The tech record, on the docket

Where industry data is missing, litigation fills the gap. These are the most-documented age cases against major technology employers — settlements, an investigative exposé, and the platform case that exposed age-targeted job ads. Companies denied wrongdoing in every instance.

Google

Heath v. Google LLC · No. 15-cv-01824 · N.D. Cal. · settled Jul 2019

$11M / 227 applicants 40+

A class of 227 applicants over 40 alleged Google systematically rejected them for site-reliability, software and systems engineering roles. Court filings noted Google's median employee age was 29 while it grew past 30,000 staff.

Settlement added manager training, a recruiting subcommittee on age diversity, and complaint-investigation requirements — about $35K per claimant.

Google denied any intentional age discrimination and said applicants lacked the required technical aptitude.

HP & HPE

Forsyth v. HP Inc. · No. 5:16-cv-04775 · N.D. Cal. · settled 2023

$18M / ~7-year fight

Former employees alleged HP's 2012 "Workforce Reduction Plan" disproportionately cut workers 40+ to remake the company as "younger" — leadership reportedly described shifting a "labor diamond" into a "labor pyramid."

The case ran so long the lead plaintiff, laid off at 62, did not live to see it resolved.

HP and HPE denied the allegations and any wrongdoing or liability.

IBM

ProPublica/Mother Jones (2018) · Rusis, Rodriquez, Rumsey v. IBM

20,000+ U.S. workers 40+ cut, 2013–2018 (est.)

A 2018 investigation estimated IBM separated more than 20,000 U.S. employees age 40+ over six years. One later suit surfaced an executive email about inviting the "dinobabies" to leave and making them an "extinct species."

IBM moved age claims out of court by requiring individual arbitration in severance waivers — and stopped disclosing the ages of those laid off.

IBM denies wrongdoing; it settled the "dinobabies" matter and continues to litigate arbitration disputes.

Intel

2015–2016 reductions in force · EEOC investigation (Seattle/SF)

median age 49 vs ~42 for those retained

In one 2,300-person 2016 layoff, internal documents showed the median age of those cut was 49 — about seven years older than staff who stayed. Analyses indicated over-40 workers were roughly twice as likely to be selected.

The EEOC investigated and found reasonable cause for at least one claimant; several reached confidential resolutions.

Intel said cuts were based on skills and business needs, not age or other demographics.

Facebook ad targeting & the CWA charges

Communications Workers of America v. T-Mobile US & Amazon · No. 17-cv-07232 · N.D. Cal.

66 employers charged / platform overhaul + 7 EEOC "reasonable cause" findings

Since 2018, the CWA and workers filed charges against more than 60 employers for using Facebook's tools to exclude older workers (and women) from even seeing job ads — discrimination built into the ad-delivery layer, not just the hiring decision.

In March 2019 Facebook settled, agreeing to strip age, gender and other targeting from job, housing and credit ads. In September 2019 the EEOC issued historic reasonable-cause findings against seven employers (including Capital One, Edward Jones and Enterprise Holdings) for the practice.

The settlement reshaped how a major platform delivers employment ads nationwide.

06

Read the data honestly

What this can and cannot show

There is no official "tech industry" charge count. The EEOC publishes charges by basis, by year, and by state — but not by industry sector. Any figure claiming "X age-discrimination charges in tech" is an estimate, not an EEOC statistic. This graphic keeps the national/state data and the company litigation record separate on purpose.

Charges undercount the problem. Surveys find a large majority of older workers have seen or experienced age bias, while only about 3% ever file a formal complaint. Falling charge counts after 2008 track a decline across all discrimination categories, not proof that bias fell.

A charge is an allegation. Filing a charge is not a finding of discrimination, and every company above denied wrongdoing. Settlements resolved claims without admissions of liability.