Ageism And The DEIB Blind Spot

Introduction

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) have become the foundational principles in modern workplace culture, influencing how companies hire, promote, and retain talent. However, age remains a glaring omission in most DEIB strategies. While conversations around gender, race, and disability gain traction, age-related bias often goes unaddressed, despite its widespread impact across industries and various roles.

Globally post-COVID & AI Adaptation – there has been a visible bias with people above 40 years in their employment journey.

In India, this oversight is amplified by the absence of legal protections against age discrimination. Without comprehensive legislation or policy frameworks to recognize and challenge age-based bias, both older and younger professionals are routinely subjected to unfair treatment. Stereotypes about declining productivity, adaptability, or inexperience result in missed opportunities, stalled careers, and underutilized potential.

Legal and Policy Gaps in Addressing Age Discrimination in India

India does not currently have a dedicated legal framework that explicitly prohibits age discrimination in employment. While certain social welfare policies support older adults, they do not extend to workplace protections against age-based bias.

The Constitution of India, through Article 15(1), prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth—but not age. Article 16 provides similar protections in public employment. However, age is not presently included among the explicitly protected categories. Similarly, key labour reforms like the Code on Wages (2019) and the Industrial Relations Code (2020) do not specifically recognize age as a protected characteristic in employment practices.

This creates a policy gap where individuals facing age-based bias—whether younger or older—may find limited recourse through existing legal channels. As workplace demographics continue to evolve, this could represent an opportunity for lawmakers and stakeholders to consider more inclusive protections that reflect contemporary workforce realities.

Judicial Interpretation: Limited engagement so far

The Indian judiciary had limited opportunities to address ageism as a standalone constitutional issue. One of the few cases where age and employment intersected was Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981). The case involved service regulations that mandated air hostesses retire at age 35 or earlier if they married within the first four years of service or became pregnant. Meanwhile, male cabin crew were allowed to serve until age 58.

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the rules mandating termination upon first pregnancy and the provision giving unchecked discretion to the Managing Director to extend service beyond 35, finding both to be in violations of Article 14 of the constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. However, it upheld the retirement age disparity between male and female crew, reasoning that they belonged to different cadres with distinct nature of their roles and health considerations.

While the case did touch upon aspects of age and gender biases, the issue of age discrimination was not adjudicated as a standalone constitutional concern. Consequently, the jurisprudential development around ageism remains nascent, with limited precedent addressing it directly under constitutional principles.

Prevalence of Ageism in Indian Workplaces

A study by Randstad India² found that 29% of employees over the age of 55 reported experiencing or witnessing ageism, compared to 42% of those under 55—indicating that age bias affects both ends of the age spectrum. Younger professionals often face assumptions of inexperience, while older employees are stereotyped as resistant to change or less technologically adept.

Industries like IT, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare show the highest levels of age-related bias. Gender also plays a role: 42% of women surveyed reported encountering ageism, compared to 37% of men. While the difference wasn't statistically significant, qualitative findings pointed to the intersection of age and gender as a compounding factor.

Recruitment emerged as the most common point of bias. Sixty-one percent of respondents observed age-discriminatory practices in job ads, particularly those that specify qualifying age ranges or strict experience requirements. Among these, 57% noted a clear preference for candidates aged 25–34, reflecting a narrow view of the "ideal" hire in many organizations.

United States: Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)³

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) is a federal law enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that protects individuals aged 40 and above from age-based discrimination in the workplace. It applies to private employers with 20 or more employees, as well as state and local governments, labour organizations, employment agencies, and federal entities. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate based on age in any aspect of employment—including hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training. However, individuals claiming an ADEA violation bear the burden of proving that age was the decisive factor in an adverse employment action, such as termination or refusal to hire.⁴>

Notably, ADEA protections can be waived under certain conditions. For example, an employer may offer a severance package that includes a waiver of the right to sue for age discrimination under the ADEA. Such waivers, however, must comply with strict standards set out in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which amended the ADEA in 1990 to ensure waivers are "knowing and voluntary." The OWBPA further strengthens age-based protections by prohibiting discrimination in employee benefit plans, such as health insurance, disability coverage, pensions, and retirement plans. While employers may adjust benefit levels based on cost, they must ensure parity in the value or cost of benefits offered to older and younger workers.⁵

To be valid, a waiver under the OWBPA must⁶:

• Be written in clear, understandable language;
• Refer specifically to ADEA rights or claims;
• Advise the employee to consult with an attorney;
• Provide at least 21 days to consider the agreement (or 45 days in group terminations); and
• Allow seven days to revoke the agreement after signing.

The Impact of Ageism and the Importance of Integrating Age into DEIB Initiatives

Ageism harms individuals and businesses alike—and it is not limited to older workers. While older employees often face stereotypes of being resistant to change, less productive, or technologically outdated, younger professionals are frequently dismissed as inexperienced, entitled, or lacking commitment. Both forms of bias can severely impact morale, job satisfaction, and performance.

For individuals, age-based discrimination—whether due to youth or seniority—can lead to exclusion from critical opportunities, underestimation of capabilities, chronic stress, and a reduced sense of belonging at work. Younger workers may be overlooked for leadership roles or key projects despite their skills, while older employees might be side-lined or forced into early retirement, regardless of their contributions.

From a business standpoint, ageism drains productivity and innovation potential. By marginalizing younger employees, organizations stifle fresh thinking, adaptability, and emerging leadership. Conversely, side-lining older talent results in the loss of institutional knowledge, mentorship, and continuity. A culture that permits or ignores age bias risks becoming fragmented, less resilient, and less capable of responding to diverse market needs.

Excluding age from DEIB efforts undermines the very goals of inclusion and equity. It limits generational diversity, weakens team cohesion, and fosters workplace environments where contributions are judged through biased lenses rather than merit.

Organizations that recognize age as a critical DEIB pillar gain distinct advantages. They build stronger, more inclusive teams that benefit from the full spectrum of experience and energy. Generationally diverse teams foster creativity, innovation, and empathy—qualities essential for today's complex challenges. In countries like India, where the workforce includes both an expanding young population and a growing cohort of older professionals, integrating age into DEIB initiatives is not just ethical—it is essential for sustained growth and social equity.

Recommendations

For Policymakers

Policymakers should introduce comprehensive legislation that explicitly prohibits age discrimination in the workplace. This legislation must clearly define age discrimination—both direct and indirect—and provide a framework for addressing it through accessible legal remedies. Enforcement mechanisms should include an independent body to investigate complaints, the ability to impose penalties such as fines or mandatory reinstatement, and mechanisms for periodic audits of age-inclusion practices. Additionally, public awareness campaigns and employer guidelines can help in ensuring that such laws are understood and effectively implemented.

For Employers

Employers play a critical role in combating ageism and embedding age into DEIB strategies. First, they should revise their recruitment and HR policies to eliminate age-biased language and ensure job descriptions focus on skills and experience rather than arbitrary age limits.

Training programs aimed at addressing unconscious bias and promoting age awareness are essential. These should be coupled with internal policies that explicitly prohibit age discrimination and offer clear mechanism to report and address related grievances confidentially and without retaliation.

Skill promotion initiatives should be prioritized, especially when new technologies or systems are introduced. Older employees should be offered reskilling opportunities tailored to their roles and learning styles, ensuring they remain competitive and confident in adapting to evolving workplace demands.

Transition assistance programs—such as phased retirement, mentoring roles, or advisory positions—can help older professionals remain engaged by leveraging their expertise while offering flexibility that suits their career stage.

Reverse mentoring, where younger employees guide seniors on new tools or cultural shifts, fosters mutual respect and learning, bridging generational gaps and promoting a more inclusive and adaptive workplace culture.

To build a collaborative work environment, employers should create mentoring pairs that cross age, gender, and cultural boundaries. These partnerships facilitate two-way knowledge sharing—combining technical fluency and institutional memory—and promote mutual support across generations. Cross-functional teams should be deliberately composed of members from diverse age brackets to encourage inclusive dialogue and innovation. Intergenerational collaboration strengthens team resilience and helps break down stereotypes, replacing them with empathy and respect.

Regular assessments of pay equity must include age as a parameter alongside gender, ethnicity, and other diversity factors. Conducting periodic pay audits helps ensure fairness, and implementing transparent pay structures—based on skills, responsibilities, and performance rather than tenure—reduces the risk of age-related wage bias.⁷

Finally, age-inclusion must extend to all age groups. While older employees often face explicit bias, younger workers may encounter stereotypes around inexperience or entitlement. Employers should avoid dismissing younger voices and instead build a culture where contributions are evaluated on merit. Inclusion efforts should ensure that early-career professionals have access to mentorship, leadership pathways, and equal recognition.

Employers must also recognize age as a vital component of diversity. Developing age-inclusive policies, promoting lifelong learning, and fostering intergenerational collaboration are not just ethical imperatives but business necessities. Embedding these values into the organizational culture ensures that employees of all age groups feel valued, included, and equipped to contribute meaningfully.

Conclusion

Ageism remains a persistent blind spot in India's DEIB efforts, often overshadowed by more visible forms of bias. The absence of legal protections against age discrimination—combined with workplace policies that neither acknowledge nor address generational bias—has left both older and younger employees vulnerable to exclusion, stereotyping, and unequal opportunities.

Older professionals are frequently overlooked for leadership roles, reskilling initiatives, and long-term career growth, while younger employees may be dismissed as inexperienced or undeserving of responsibility. This two-sided nature of ageism not only impacts individual careers but also weakens team diversity, innovation, and institutional memory.

India stands at a crossroads. With a rapidly ageing population and a massive, youthful workforce, it has both the urgency and the potential to adopt a truly age-inclusive approach. By drawing from international legal frameworks like the ADEA in the U.S., and integrating forward-thinking employer practices—such as intergenerational mentoring, transparent pay structures, and inclusive recruitment—India can craft a model that values talent across all age groups.

Age inclusion is not a peripheral issue; it is central to building equitable, dynamic, and resilient workplaces. Embracing age as a core pillar of DEIB will not only improve morale and retention but also help Indian organizations future-proof their talent strategies in a changing demographic and economic landscape.

Illustrative Table supporting NO Discrimination based on Age :

Footnotes

1 The image used is the copyrighted property of its respective owner(s). It is used here for informational and illustrative purposes only, without any commercial intent. All rights to the original poster design, title, characters, and associated content belong to the original copyright holders. No copyright infringement is intended.

2 Randstad India. (2024). Ageism Report 2024. https://info.randstad.in/hubfs/Thought%20leadership%20reports/Ageism%20Report%202024%20(1).pdf

3 Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/age_discrimination_in_employment_act_(adea)

4 Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Age Discrimination at Work: What Employers Need to Know. Retrieved from https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/what-is-the-age-discrimination-in-employment-act

5 Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/older_workers_benefit_protection_act

6 Practical Law. (n.d.). Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). Retrieved from https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com

7 Michael Page India. (n.d.). Workplace Ageism: Age Discrimination in India. Retrieved from https://www.michaelpage.co.in/advice/management-advice/diversity-and-inclusion/workplace-ageism-age-discrimination