A Discussion of Age Discrimination in the Workplace
There are many different forms of discrimination in the workplace. Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2001) feel that “America is a culture in which youth is valued” and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits employers from discharging, refusing to hire, promoting or any other discriminatory act based on age. There are myths about older workers that the ADEA protects against. Some of the myths are:
· “Older worker are less able to perform in most positions that younger workers, even given their experience.
· In a reduction in force (RIF) caused by economic reasons, employers should always terminate the older workers, since they are the highest paid.
· If most people in a certain age group have a common weakness, it can be generalized that all in that group have the weakness, and age can my used as a job qualification.
· If an employee is discriminated against because of youth, the employee has a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
· Employees must retire at age 65 in the United States” (2001, pg 411).
The court case Adams, Wanda, et al. v. Florida Power Corp., et al. (2002) argued that 70% of the 1,200 employees laid off from Florida Power Corporation between 1992 and 1996 were over the age of 40. Wanda Adams and her coworkers felt this was a case of age discrimination and initiated a class action lawsuit against their former employer because they felt Florida Power Corporation was in violation of the ADEA. In 1996 the Florida District Court ruled in favor of the former employees. But in August 1999, the court decertified the class; ruling that a disparate impact theory of liability is not available to those suing for age discrimination under the ADEA, as it is for those suing under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for race discrimination. Disparate impact states “even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class” (http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm). To prove the liability, Wanda Adams, et al, needed to prove that Florida Power Corporation might not have intentionally discriminated against employees over 40 years old, but the results of the layoffs unfairly affected the group.
Florida Power Corporation claimed the layoffs were necessary because in 1992 Congress opened the electric utility industry to competition. The increase of competition led to fewer customers, resulting in the need for fewer employees. The Florida district court make no ruling that the Adams class could produce evidence of disparate impact, and allowed the case to be appealed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of whether a disparate impact clam can be [next page]