when was retirement age raised to 70 in age discrimination act of 1967?
105923
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967\n\nEDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the text of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-202) (ADEA), as amended, as it appears in volume 29 of the United States Code, beginning at section 621. The ADEA prohibits employment discrimina tion against persons 40 years of age or older. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (Pub. L. 101-433) amends several sections of the ADEA. In addition, section 115 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-166) amends section 7(e) of the ADEA (29 U. S.C. 626(e)). These amendments appear in boldface type. Cross references to the ADEA as enacted appear in italics following each section heading. Editor's notes also appear in italics.\n\nAn Act\nTo prohibit age discrimination in employment.\n\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United\nStates of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the\n"Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". \n\n     * * *\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSE\n\nSEC. 621. [Section 2]\n\n(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that-\n\n     (1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers\nfind themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and\nespecially to regain employment when displaced from jobs; \n\n     (2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for\njob performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise\ndesirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons; \n\n     (3) the incidence of unemployment, especially long­term\nunemployment with resultant deterioration of skill, morale, and employer\nacceptability is, relative to the younger ages, high among older workers;\ntheir numbers are great and growing; and their employment problems grave;
181182
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling:\n\n"In 1973, petitioners in No. 85-1626 (hereinafter petitioners), including individual employees of Lukens Steel Co. (Lukens), brought suit in Federal District Court against Lukens and the employees' collective-bargaining agents (Unions), asserting racial discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The court held that Pennsylvania's 6-year statute of limitations governing contract claims applied to 1981 claims, that Lukens had discriminated in certain respects, and that the Unions were also guilty of discriminatory practices in failing to challenge Lukens' discriminatory discharges of probationary employees, in failing and refusing to assert instances of racial discrimination as grievances, and in tolerating and tacitly encouraging racial harassment. The court entered injunctive orders against Lukens and the Unions, reserving damages issues for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that Pennsylvania's 2-year statute of limitations governing personal injury actions, rather than the 6-year statute, controlled the 1981 claims, but affirmed the liability judgment against the Unions."
353966
It probably means that if a person has worked for the city or state for 25 years they can draw a retirement.  You should check with whoever it was that was worked for to get particular details.
247408
I believe it is Title 7 of the civil rights acts prohibits discrimination of anyone over the age of 40 (you may want to double check that number, but I'm pretty sure it's right).  Basically that means as long as he is physically & mentally capable of performing the tasks that the job requires, and is the most qualified applicant, they have to hire him.
270105
61\n\nEdit: Upon further review of my link:\n\nHe held 61 at retirement. He now holds 58 and is tied for 1
506488
24 years - 1970 to 1994
904674
In 1970, it was 22,762,000\nIn 1995 it was 38, 139, 000\n\nThe increase was 38 139 000- 22 762 000 = = 15 377 000\n\nAs a fraction, the percent increase = actual increase/original then times 100 to convert to a percent.\n\nSo 15 377 000 / 22 762 000 X 100 = around 67.56 %
96471
I don't believe that there were any Civil Rights acts enacted during those years.  1965 was a huge year for the Civil Rights Act.  Some prominent people in the Civil Rights movement during 70-73 would be Jesse Jackson & Gloria Steinem.
664940
Figures..right when I hit retirement age...grrrr
993387
well, it depends on where there is.  you can check w/ the embassy of that country.   \n I totally agree w/ you on this. I someday will do the same and head to N. Africa.\ngood luck and congrats on your retirement !!
1114633
become a congressman (woman), after six years you can retire with pension plus you can vote for your own raises every two years. 168k a year is not bad.
210607
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000  17.6% 12.4%
948791
Check this link on work legislation - age, sex, religion, etc\n\nhttp://www.biznet.org.uk/legislation-age.htm
913430
im not sure but ill say around the upper 50s-upper 60s
67561
If an MP loses an election in the UK (as several did in 1997) the rules entitle them to claim their parliamentary pension as soon as they reach age 65.
707435
1991, I believe, but it has been updated, clarified, and amended since then.\n\nGoogle the entire term for more info.
464488
People born between 1946-1964