Diplomas Must Be Under 10 Years Old?
<p>Full disclosure: This was a dumpster fire on Reddit, and I am just posting here to get a more nuanced opinion. I am not the original asker and I don’t know which US state.</p>

<p>Supposedly, there is a tech company that has instituted a rule that, when making decisions about hiring or promoting, they will only consider degrees that were obtained within the last 10 years. Is this legal?</p>

<p>I can certainly see an argument for this being age discrimination, but could there also be a counterargument that anyone can always go back to school, and in the tech industry there are legitimate reasons why a more recent diploma would be more valuable?</p>

<p>This policy would appear to have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact" rel="noreferrer">disparate impact</a> on workers age 40 and older, given that most workers obtain degrees in their 20s and few obtain a second degree later.  Workers age 40 and older are protected from employment discrimination under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act_of_1967" rel="noreferrer">ADEA</a>.</p>

<p>Policies with a disparate impact may be considered discriminatory, but not necessarily. The <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/adea_rfoa_qa_final_rule.cfm#_ftn1" rel="noreferrer">EEOC rule</a> as of 2012 is that such a policy is not illegal if it is based on a "reasonable factor other than age".  It is not clear to me whether the 10-year degree policy would pass this test, and it might depend on how the employer justified the rule.</p>

<p>Here is the discussion from the EEOC's FAQ:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>8.What determines whether an employment practice is based on Reasonable Factors Other than Age? </p>
  
  <p>An employment practice is based on an RFOA when it was reasonably
  designed and administered to achieve a legitimate business purpose in
  light of the circumstances, including its potential harm to older
  workers. </p>
  
  <p>Example 1:</p>
  
  <p>If a police department decided to require applicants for patrol
  positions to pass a physical fitness test to be sure that the officers
  were physically able to pursue and apprehend suspects, it should know
  that such a test might exclude older workers more than younger ones. 
  Nevertheless, the department's actions would likely be based on an
  RFOA if it reasonably believed that the test measured the speed and
  strength appropriate to the job, and if it did not know, or should not
  have known, of steps that it could have taken to reduce harm to older
  workers without unduly burdening the department.</p>
  
  <p>The rule emphasizes the need for an individualized consideration of
  the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular situation.  It
  includes the following list of considerations relevant to assessing
  reasonableness:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>The extent to which the factor is related to the employer's stated business purpose;</li>
  <li>The extent to which the employer defined the factor accurately and applied the factor fairly and accurately, including the extent to
  which managers and supervisors were given guidance or training about
  how to apply the factor and avoid discrimination;</li>
  <li>The extent to which the employer limited supervisors' discretion to assess employees subjectively, particularly where the criteria that
  the supervisors were asked to evaluate are known to be subject to
  negative age-based stereotypes;</li>
  <li>The extent to which the employer assessed the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers; and</li>
  <li>The degree of the harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the extent of injury and the numbers of
  persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took
  steps to reduce the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such
  steps.</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/03/30/2012-5896/disparate-impact-and-reasonable-factors-other-than-age-under-the-age-discrimination-in-employment" rel="noreferrer">Here</a> is the full text of the rule, 77 FR 19080.</p>

united-states discrimination