This bill invalidates predispute arbitration agreements for age discrimination disputes, allowing older Americans to choose litigation over mandatory arbitration.
Michael Lawler
Representative
NY-17
The Protecting Older Americans Act of 2025 amends federal law to address arbitration agreements concerning age discrimination disputes involving individuals aged 40 and older. This bill invalidates predispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers if the older individual chooses to pursue litigation under existing federal, tribal, or state law. Furthermore, courts, not arbitrators, are designated to decide the applicability, validity, and enforceability of these arbitration agreements for age discrimination claims.
Age Discrimination Claims: New Bill Restores Right to Sue, Invalidating Mandatory Arbitration for Workers Over 40
The “Protecting Older Americans Act of 2025” is a tight piece of legislation focused on one major change: blocking the use of mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements in cases of age discrimination. If you are 40 or older and believe you’ve faced discrimination—whether it’s disparate treatment, harassment, or retaliation—this bill says you get to choose whether to sue your employer in court or go through arbitration. This change applies to any age discrimination dispute that starts after the bill becomes law, overriding existing contracts that might force you into a private arbitration setting.
The Fine Print on Forced Arbitration
For years, many employment contracts have included a clause that says, essentially, “If we ever have a dispute, we agree right now to settle it through private arbitration, not in court.” This is called a predispute arbitration agreement. Under this new Act, if you choose to pursue an age discrimination claim in Federal, Tribal, or State court, that arbitration clause is instantly rendered invalid and unenforceable. This is a big deal because arbitration is private, often faster, but frequently viewed as favoring employers. This bill gives the power back to the employee to decide on the venue.
Who Decides What’s Valid?
One of the most important technical changes in Section 2 is who gets to decide if the arbitration agreement is even valid in the first place. Currently, many contracts try to delegate that decision to the arbitrator—meaning the person arbitrating the dispute decides if they have the authority to arbitrate it. This bill explicitly states that for age discrimination claims, a court, and only a court, must decide if the arbitration agreement applies and if it’s enforceable. This holds true even if the contract tries to delegate that power elsewhere. This ensures a judge gets the first look at whether the employee’s right to sue has been preserved.
Real-World Impact: The Litigation Shift
For workers over 40, this bill is a clear win for legal options. Say you’re a 55-year-old manager who believes they were passed over for a promotion given to a much younger, less experienced colleague. If your employment contract had a mandatory arbitration clause, you’d be forced into a private, expensive process. This bill removes that hurdle, allowing you to file a public lawsuit in court, which often comes with greater discovery rights and the possibility of a jury trial. For employers, however, this means a significant increase in litigation risk and cost. Instead of the relatively private and often less costly route of arbitration, they now face the prospect of public, potentially class-action lawsuits over age discrimination claims. This shift restores a core legal right to employees but simultaneously raises the compliance and legal defense burden for businesses.