EEOC probe of mandatory retirement at Deloitte has implications for law firms
Can large partnerships insulate themselves from claims of age discrimination by partners? The issue has arisen once again as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigates mandatory retirement at Deloitte, an accounting and financial-services firm.
Deloitte has acknowledged the investigation into its mandatory retirement age of 62 for partners, spurring the American Institute of CPAs to write a letter urging the EEOC not to file a lawsuit, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports. At issue is whether partners are in effect employees who are covered by age-discrimination law.
Bloomberg News says the probe “could have ramifications for those law firms, including slightly less than half of the largest ones, that still have mandatory retirement ages for their partners.”
The story notes that law firms Sidley Austin and Kelley Drye & Warren both settled EEOC claims of age discrimination stemming from treatment of older partners, leaving no precedent in place.
Law firm consultant Jim Cotterman of Altman Weil says he expects law firms to eliminate mandatory retirement for economic reasons. Some older partners with significant books of business may not want to retire, and firms without mandatory retirement could benefit in the lateral-hiring market, he said.
