On October 29, 2024, the Connecticut Appellate Court issued an important decision in a case brought by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Yale University.

The court affirmed that phrases such as “recent college graduate(s)” or “recent graduate(s)” in job postings are not inherently discriminatory because of age under Connecticut law. In addition to providing clarity for employers, the decision underscores the value of carefully drafting job advertisements to minimize potential litigation risks down the road.

Quick Hits

• The Connecticut Appellate Court ruled that phrases like “recent college graduates” in job postings are not inherently age-discriminatory under Connecticut law, providing clarity for employers while underscoring the value of careful drafting to avoid litigation risks.
• The court rejected the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities’ argument that the phrase “recent college graduates” served as a proxy for age discrimination, as there was no factual basis to conclude that such language discouraged older applicants.
• Connecticut employers may want to avoid using recency-based descriptors in job postings and focus on specific skills and experience to comply with antidiscrimination laws and minimize age bias in recruitment.

Key Takeaways From the Decision

The CHRO unsuccessfully argued that including the phrase “recent college graduates” within a job posting served as a proxy for age discrimination, akin to the explicitly gender discriminatory language addressed in Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26 (1975). The court rejected that comparison, agreeing with the analysis of the Connecticut Superior Court, which noted that the Evening Sentinel case had dealt with facially discriminatory job postings that included terms like “Help Wanted Male” or “Help Wanted Female,” which excluded entire groups of people based on sex.

Affirming the Connecticut Superior Court, the Connecticut Appellate Court found that “recent college graduate(s)” was neither per se discriminatory nor a proxy for age discrimination since individuals of any age could be recent college graduates, and the phrase ‘recent college graduates’ did not express a preference for a younger class of applicants.”

The CHRO’s claim that such language inherently discouraged older applicants was further undermined by a lack of factual evidence to support the conclusion.

Although the court held that such phrases are not inherently discriminatory, the decision does not preclude the possibility that, in combination with supporting evidence, such language could support a claim of age discrimination.

Broader Compliance Concerns for Employment Applications Under Connecticut Law

Connecticut’s antidiscrimination framework, including Public Act No. 21-69, “An Act Deterring Age Discrimination in Employment Applications,” explicitly prohibits Connecticut employers from requesting age-related information on initial job applications. This includes dates of attendance or graduation at educational institutions. These measures aim to create age-inclusive workplaces by preventing unconscious bias from affecting early hiring decisions. Exceptions to the statute include the following: (1) the employer’s request is based on a bona fide occupational qualification or need (e.g., airline pilots and bus drivers might have mandatory retirement ages due to safety concerns); or (2) the employer is required to comply with any provision of state or federal law (e.g., Connecticut state law requires bartenders to be at least eighteen years of age).

Considerations for Employers

In light of the Connecticut Appellate Court’s decision, employers may want to consider the following:

• Avoiding recency-based descriptors: Consider replacing “recent graduate(s)” with qualifications-focused phrases like “entry-level role” or “degree in [field] required.”
• Focusing on skills and experience: Consider highlighting specific skills or certifications relevant to the role instead of relying on vague or time-bound descriptors.
• Training hiring managers accordingly: Consider ensuring human resources and hiring managers are aware of age bias risks in recruitment and selection processes.

Connecticut employers and foreign corporations with Connecticut employees may want to review their job-posting policies to reflect the reasoning of this recent Connecticut Appellate Court ruling and factor the requirements of Public Act 21-69 into their broader recruitment practices to ensure compliance with Connecticut law.