In a pair of closely watched decisions, the Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed the lower court’s judgments in two related cases, finding that the use of “recent college graduates” or “recent graduate” in job postings did not constitute age discrimination per se.

In the cases, (CHRO v. Travelers and CHRO v. Yale University) the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) appealed decisions by a human rights referee dismissing complaints of age discrimination against Travelers Indemnity Company and Yale University. Both cases stemmed from job advertisements using the phrases “recent college graduates” or “recent graduate.”

The CHRO argued that the language used in the job postings was inherently discriminatory based on the “per se” theory, citing Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women, a 1975 Connecticut Supreme Court case which dealt with explicitly gendered job advertisement language. The CHRO argued that the phrase acts as a proxy for age, deterring older individuals from applying.

Travelers and Yale countered that “recent college graduate” or “recent graduate” is not a proxy for age, because individuals of any age can be recent graduates. They also argued that the CHRO lacked standing and that the case was moot because Travelers had voluntarily stopped using the challenged phrase.

The case had a number of holdings. First, the court rejected the mootness argument, stating that Travelers’ voluntary cessation of the language did not guarantee it wouldn’t recur. In addition, the court upheld the CHRO’s statutory standing to pursue the case in the public interest.

But the court, citing precedent, affirmed that the use of “recent college graduate” or “recent graduate” is not inherently discriminatory. It noted, “the phrase ‘recent college graduates’ is not per se discriminatory . . . because a recent college graduate can be of any age.” The court distinguished Evening Sentinel, emphasizing its focus on gender-specific language.

The court found no factual evidence supporting the claim that the phrases were used as a proxy for age, stating, “there was no factual basis to conclude that ‘recent graduate’ evidences a preference for younger applicants.”

Here are a few key quotes from the decision:

• “[T]his court concludes that, standing by itself, the phrase ‘recent college graduate’ is not a proxy for age because a recent college graduate can be of any age.”
• “The term recent college graduate in a job advertisement does not in and of itself establish any employment restriction against the prohibited factor of age.”
• “[T]he phrase ‘recent graduate’ is not per se discriminatory . . . because, on the factual record before the referee in this case, there was no factual basis to conclude that ‘recent graduate’ evidences a preference for younger applicants.”

This ruling clarifies that simply using “recent college graduate” or “recent graduate” in a job advertisement is not automatically age discrimination in Connecticut. That does not mean that it couldn’t be used as evidence of such discrimination when combined with other pieces of evidence too.

Companies may still indicate that “no experience necessary” for certain roles or indicate that a degree is (or is not) required for the roles. But regardless of the outcome here, it’s still probably safer to avoid referencing “recent” graduates in any job requirements given the court’s decision and the notion that in another case, with different facts, it might be used as evidence to support a claim of age discrimination.