“Every day, I’m grateful to have a job,” Ms. Taaffe said recently. “I’ve read so many articles about how difficult it is to get back into the job market after a job is eliminated, and how often they are eliminated.”

But the women and their attorneys have been frustrated by what they considered inaction on other important elements of the settlement.

The university had agreed to “a review of its policies and guidelines for preventing and investigating discrimination,” including creation of a so-called second-look process.

That would allow workers with age-discrimination complaints to request review by a neutral party if they believed, as the plaintiffs did, that their allegations had been inadequately or inaccurately investigated.

In February, Ohio State notified the women’s attorneys, as required, that the review had begun. But “no one has told us who’s doing it, and how,” said Fred Gittes, whose law firm in Columbus, Ohio, along with the AARP Foundation, represents the women.

The university has made no public announcement about a review and provided no opportunity for students, staff and faculty to participate, he said.

“We had high hopes that Ohio State was ready to take a significant step to prevent this from happening again,” said Mr. Vardaro, who also works at the firm. Instead, a human resources administrator — one described in employee depositions and emails provided to the court as having encouraged age discrimination — received a promotion.