Age Discrimination Against Students

Last reviewed September 26, 2026

If you are the 45-year-old in a cohort of 24-year-olds — the career changer in nursing school, the veteran starting medicine at 38, the parent finishing a degree at night — and the program treats your age as the problem, there is a federal statute written for exactly that. Almost nobody uses it, because almost nobody knows how it works. Here is how it works.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 covers students

Most people know the ADEA, the employment statute, which only protects workers 40 and over. Students have a different statute: the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age — any age, in either direction — in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. That is nearly every college, university, and professional program in the country. The Department of Education’s implementing regulations are at 34 C.F.R. Part 110.

Because the Act is not limited to “older” people, a claim can run both ways: courts have recognized claims where the young were favored over the old and where the old were favored over the young. Long v. Fulton County School District, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2011).

Where age bias actually shows up in academic programs

It is rarely a written rule. It sounds like this: an admissions or promotions committee musing about the “return on investment” of training an older student; “we usually see stronger stamina from younger residents” in a clinical evaluation; a remediation decision that quietly assumes the older student cannot adapt; “are you sure you can keep up with the cohort?” in an interview; a technical-standards process applied with sudden rigor to the one student over 50. The comments almost never make it into the official letter — they live in interviews, hallway remarks, and meeting minutes. Write them down the same day, with the date and the exact words. That contemporaneous note is worth more than a year of argument later.

The catch: you must go through OCR first

This statute has a procedural design that catches people. You cannot simply file a lawsuit.

Step one — the complaint clock. A complaint goes to the Office for Civil Rights within 180 days of when you first knew of the discrimination. 34 C.F.R. § 110.31. Miss that window and the administrative door starts closing (OCR can extend it for good cause, but do not plan on it).

Step two — exhaustion. A private lawsuit is allowed only after administrative remedies are exhausted, which the statute deems complete either 180 days after you filed with the agency and it has made no finding, or the day the agency finds in the school’s favor. 42 U.S.C. § 6104(e)–(f).

Step three — the notice letter. Before suing you must give 30 days’ advance written notice — to the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, and the school — stating the alleged violation, the relief sought, and the court. § 6104(e)(2).

And the remedy limit. Courts have held the Act supports injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees for a prevailing plaintiff — but not money damages. Tyrrell v. City of Scranton, 134 F. Supp. 2d 373 (M.D. Pa. 2001). An injunction — reinstatement, readmission, the decision redone without the age factor — is usually what a student actually needs anyway.

How the Act is actually useful

Because of the exhaustion design, the 1975 Act is best used deliberately: as a properly filed OCR complaint that forces the school to answer in writing, and as one count in a larger case rather than the whole case. Age discrimination in academic programs rarely travels alone — the same facts often support other discrimination claims, a breach of the school’s own published policies, or, once you have complained, retaliation, which has no damages limitation of its own under the statutes it travels with. The 1975 Act’s job in the file is to put the age evidence squarely in play and to make the school defend the actual reason for its decision.

Common questions

I’m in my 50s and was screened out at the interview stage. Is that actionable?

Admissions is covered — the Act prohibits exclusion from participation on the basis of age in covered programs. The proof problem is evidence: interview notes, what was said, and how differently situated younger applicants fared. Preserve everything now.

Does the Act protect younger students too?

Yes. The statute is not one-directional, and reverse-age claims have been recognized. Long, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1274.

Is 180 days really the deadline?

The complaint must reach OCR within 180 days of when you first became aware of the act you are complaining about. 34 C.F.R. § 110.31. Treat it as hard, and file early — the exhaustion clock that lets you get to court only starts once the complaint is in.

If there are no damages, why bother?

Because reinstatement, a cleaned record, and a decision remade without the age factor are the outcomes that change a career — and because the Act’s complaint puts the school’s stated reasons in writing, where inconsistencies become the evidence for every other claim in the file.

Related: How to file an OCR complaint and the full discrimination guide.