A prisoner claimed that it was age discrimination for participants in a prison Honor Program to be given extra privileges such as more time outside their cells, exclusive access to video games, and greater use of microwaves and exercise equipment. Eligibility for the program was limited to prisoners over 30, and had previously been restricted to those over 35. Participants must also not have committed any infraction of prison rules for 24 months, and no infraction involving violence for 48 months. The plaintiff said that his first application for the program was denied because he was too young, and that his reapplication after he met the minimum age requirement was again denied because by then the program and its waiting list were full. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of the age discrimination and equal protection claims. When different treatment is not based on a suspect class, such as race, and does not involve a fundamental right, prison administrators can treat inmates differently when the treatment is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. The court found that there were "obvious reasons" to extend preferential treatment to program participants. The trial court had reasoned that using age as a proxy for maturity is rationally related to conferring greater trust and responsibility. Flynn v. Thatcher, #15-2458, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6801 (7th Cir.).
     Pennsylvania inmate could not complain about alleged age discrimination at prison since prison was not a "public accommodation" under state law. Blizzard v. Floyd, 613 A.2d 619 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).