manager's job

   Nicholas Spaeth sued six law schools for age discrimination after his

 

applications for tenure-track jobs went unanswered. The university also

 

interviewed 25 applicants for three entry-level professorships, with 24 of

 

them under 40 (one aged 46). The case highlights the difficulty faced by

 

older workers in bringing age discrimination lawsuits against employers.

 

Hiring and retaining older workers is a critical human resource issue for

 

employers and employees. It reviews management human resources

​

research about the advisability of hiring and retaining over-40s in the

 

workplace.

​

​

   One in five workers in the United States is age 55 and older. The number

 

of Americans 65 and older is expected to double from 46 million in 2016 to

 

98 million by 2060, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS

 

estimates growth rates for all workers from 2014-2024 was estimated to be

 

five percent annually. In 1965 only five percent of those 65 and over had a

 

college education compared to 25 percent in 2014. Some workers may

 

intuit that early retirement may have a quantitatively important and causal

 

negative impact on cognitive abilities, and delay filing Social Security

 

claims.

​

​

    The Great Recession led to a marked increase in the number of age

 

discrimination and racism cases filed with the Equal Employment

 

Opportunity Commission. Claims related to age discrimination at the

 

application stage increased by 25 percent between 2007 and 2009,

 

according to EEOC data. Legal actions by older workers seeking greater

 

protection from age discrimination in the workplace are being increasingly

 

common. Age discrimination cases do not receive the same level of

 

protection as those involving other protected classes such as race, color,

​

religion, or national origin. A Supreme Court ruling in 2009 further

 

diminished the legal rights of older workers in age discrimination cases.

​

In the 21st century there is less civility and more divisiveness in society,

 

including issues related to age and ageism with both legal and social

 

implications. Older workers who retire early at age 62 incur a 25%

 

reduction in their monthly Social Security benefits compared to those who

 

quit at age 66. Workers who retire early at age 62 incur a 25-percent

 

reduction in their monthly Social Security benefits. The unemployed older

 

worker is lonely and fearful of becoming dependent on others for support.

 

Age discrimination costs society billions in lost productivity, medical and

 

social welfare costs, and Social Security premiums.

​

   Current legal protections against age discrimination (at least in the U.S.)

 

do not offer much support for older workers who want to be active

 

participants in the workforce. During its first 30 or so years, the ADEA's

 

protections against age discrimination were enhanced to first increase

 

(from age 65 to age 70) and then to eliminate the upper age limit. During

 

its first 30 or so years, the ADEA's protections against age discrimination

 

were enhanced to first increase (from age 65 to age 70) and then to

 

eliminate the upper age limit.

​

​

   Title VII and the ADEA are both part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII

 

prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees

 

based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Age discrimination

 

was not a protected class under Title VII because age discrimination did

 

not exist. The ADEA was drafted as a separate statute with identical

 

language, except for the protected classes enumerated. Courts have

 

emphasized other differences between the two statutes to diminish

 

plaintiffs' ability to prove illegal age discrimination. After passage of Title VII

 

and ADEA, most all employers know not to discriminate in such an obvious

 

manner.

​

   In a race or sex discrimination case, the defendant would have to prove

 

their decision was not influenced by such illegal considerations as age and

 

gender. Employers are given free rein to engage in employment practices

 

that have an adverse impact on older workers, such as terminating

 

workers whose pension plans are about to vest or higher-paid workers.

 

Thousands of workers claim they are being turned away from potential

 

employers because they are over 50 (and over 40 years of age). There is

 

much evidence of age discrimination in terms of current employee status

 

and incumbency, but it appears to occur more often with job seekers.

 

Thousands of workers claim they are being consistently turned away

 

because they are over 50 (and even those over 40 years of age).

​

   A 49-year-old applicant for the position of territory manager was

 

screened out of a job search because the employer was specifically looking

 

for someone two to three years out of college who could adjust to change

 

and who did not have more than eight years of experience. The U.S.

 

District Court for the Northern District Court of California reached an

 

opposite result in Rabin v. The applicant (in his fifties) was not hired for a

 

position as entry level accountant because the firm hired accountants via

 

campus recruiting rather than posting open positions on its website.

​

   Despite limited legal protections for older workers, employers need to be

 

fair and proactive with them. Age discrimination in any form is wrong and

 

unwarranted and only brings unwanted scrutiny, costly legal expenditures

 

(at the federal and state levels) and a loss of a positive public image.

 

Managers have found insights from outside organizations to be extremely

 

valuable and encourage an examination of the culture and practices of

 

other companies. There is no reason to assume more experienced and

 

older workers cannot pick up on the culture of a company or not be

 

possessed of cutting-edge advances in their fields.

 

 

 

​

Work Cited

Woods Jr., Dexter R., and David M. Savino. “Age Discrimination in Employment: What Is Legally Permissible May Not Be Managerially Wise.” Employee Relations Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 4, Spring 2021, pp. 31–51. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=bth&AN=148063651&site=bsi-live.