In Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87, the Seventh Circuit held that ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) claims can include a hostile work environment theory. This decision is a wake-up call for employers to understand how age discrimination might manifest beyond overt decisions like hiring or firing.
Facts
The plaintiff was a long-time, high-performing teacher who had taught at the same school for 18 years before being transferred to another building. After her transfer, she contended she was given a higher share of behaviorally challenging students, was unfairly criticized, lacked classroom support, and endured intimidating conduct by administrators. She sued, asserting that these conditions created an intolerable, age-discriminatory work environment.
The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, rejecting her hostile environment claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed but clarified key legal principles around ADEA harassment claims.
Holding
- ADEA permits hostile work environment claims
The court held that the phrase in ADEA — prohibiting discrimination “with respect to … terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” — parallels Title VII’s language. Because hostile environment claims are a recognized form of discrimination under Title VII, the same interpretive logic applies under ADEA. (That’s the first time the Seventh has explicitly recognized that claim under ADEA.) - Elements of an ADEA hostile work environment claim
To make out such a claim, a plaintiff must show:
a. Unwelcome harassment or mistreatment;
b. That the harassment was because of age (i.e. age played a motivating part);
c. The harassment was sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to alter the work environment; and
d. Employer liability — either through direct or indirect mechanisms (e.g., supervisory involvement, notice and failure to act). - The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff
The plaintiff must show that age discrimination motivated the harassment. The employer does not have to disprove age bias once the claim is properly stated. The court emphasized that speculative or conclusory statements (e.g. “I feel this was because of my age”) are not enough. - Why the plaintiff lost in this case
The teacher failed to provide any concrete evidence that age animus motivated any of the complained-of conduct. Her argument rested almost entirely on her belief that age was the reason, which the court viewed as speculative and unsupported by factual linkage. Thus, she could not carry her burden and summary judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed.
Practical Lessons for Employers
- Don’t assume harassment policies only need to cover race, sex, religion, etc. Age must be explicitly included, because a hostile environment claim based on age is viable under federal law (at least in the Seventh and other circuits).
- Ensure training for supervisors and managers includes recognition of how age bias might subtly surface (criticisms, exclusion, disproportionate burden, microaggressions).
- Prompt and effective response to harassment complaints is critical — not just to address the issue but to limit liability exposure.
- Keep solid documentation of employment decisions. If conduct is ambiguous or arguably harsh, being able to point to nondiscriminatory rationale is crucial.
- Employers should treat complaints seriously and investigate thoroughly, even if age bias is not obvious at first glance.
While this 7th circuit opinion is not binding on Idaho state or federal courts, it may provide some indication of how our jurisdiction might view this issue. Let us know if you have any questions.