Marymount Manhattan College
In this case, a 38-year-old applicant was hired over a 64-year-old applicant, Patricia Catterson, for an assistant professor position, even though the older applicant was highly qualified. Based on the information available, it is not evident that Marymount Manhattan College decided to hire the younger candidate rather than Catterson solely based on Catterson’s age. If they wanted to discriminate against age, they would not have selected Catterson as a finalist to begin with. According to When the Abuser Goes to Work (2013), “Ms. Catterson was the leading candidate” (para. 5). The fact that she was elevated to front-runner in the selection process shows in itself that the hiring committee did not see age.
There is a lack of information available to the public, and what is available is missing lots of context and details. Without further information, however, it appears that there were several other reasons aside from age that Marymount Manhattan College may have chosen the younger candidate. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc established that age must be more than just a “motivating factor” in the employment decision; thus, there essentially must be no other reason for the decision not to hire other than age (Glenn & Little, 2014). Though the college stated that the younger candidate was “at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position,” the phrase could have been taken out of context (para. 5). For all we know, Catterson may have said she can only work from 10 AM to 2 PM, or maybe she had several other activities or responsibilities she was involved with. That statement does not in itself indicate that age was thedecidingfactor. It may have been part of the decision-making process, but that is not sufficient for violation of the ADEA.
Trinity Protection Services
In this case, a group of people was let go from Trinity Protection Services due to failing their firearm requalification tests (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. EEOC, 2011). They were told that they had to wait 6 months to retake the test (U.S. EEOC, 2011). Three individuals aged 28, 29, and 50 were called back to retake it after a month, but the older individuals aged 66 to 73 were not contacted (U.S. EEOC, 2011). There is an argument for discrimination based on sex intertwined with this case since the individuals called back were all women and those not called were all men, but that argument is irrelevant to the case for ADEA.
This case has a huge hole in it because the company did invite back a 50-year-old, and being over the age of 40, she was protected by ADEA as well. If we are following the letter of the law, then it is clear that there was no violation of the ADEA because the 50-year-old individual was invited back. The fact that the individual was still significantly younger than the older applicants is irrelevant since she falls into the “above 40” category. Being in the category places her on equal terms with the older applicants through the lens of the ADEA.
On another notion, say we entertain the claim that Trinity Protection Services did call the select individuals back early to retake the test and chose not to call the older individuals back based on their age. It can still be argued that the company was still in compliance with ADEA due to a possibleBonaFideOccupationalQualification exception. Having worked as a security officer in the past, I know that 90% of security is in the optics. Security is encouraged to be visible to deter potential crimes. Trinity Protection Services may have qualified for a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exemption because the optics of having guards aged 66 to 72 visible can make the company and the security presence look weak. The appearance of weakness would not only affect the company’s business image but could also increase the risk of crime occurrence.
References
Glenn, J. J., & Little, K. E. (2014). A study of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.GPSolo,31(6), 40–45
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2011, September 27).Trinity Protection Services sued by EEOC for age and sex discrimination.
https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/trinity-protection-services-sued-eeoc-age-and-sex-discrimination
When the Abuser Goes to Work. (2013, January 15).Dance over: College must pay.https://www.abusergoestowork.com/tag/patricia-catterson/
Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc.
This case was settled in 2012 in court and the company was ordered to pay more than $193,000 to a woman by the name of Debra Moreno. This case was opened because a 54-year-old woman was terminated because she “looks old, and sounds old on the phone,” and was referred to as a “bag of bones” (EEOC, 2012). The company Hawaii Healthcare Professionals is a business that provides home health care to seniors. The way the company fired Moreno is an act of age discrimination. Had this employee not been fired due to her age, the company could have said she was being terminated due to the company downsizing, no need for them to continue with her position, or because of attendance issues. This company was not open to questioning or commenting during this time.
Age discrimination affects older and younger workers and prevents equal access to opportunity. Ageism is one of the most common forms of discrimination (Policy Unit, 2008). Age discrimination can be defined as giving unfavorable treatment or fewer opportunities to an individual due to his or her chronological age (younger or older) and is one of the most uncommon forms of unfair treatment in the labor market (Australian Human Rights, 2006, Carla G. Chanaz, 2017, Kidd Fleming, 2015).
EEOC. (2012).Court orders Hawaii healthcare professionals and its owner to pay over $190,000 for age discrimination
Policy Unit – Age Concern England. Ageism in Britain 2006. London: Age Concern England; 2008
Australian Human Rights Commission. Age discrimination Sydney; 2015 [cited 2019 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our[1]work/employers/age-discrimination
Chanaz G, Carla G. Discriminating Against Millennials in the Workplace Analysis on Age Discrimination Against Young Adults. Journal of US-China Public Administration. 2017;14(1):38-45.
Kydd A, Fleming A. Ageism and age discrimination in health care: Fact or fiction? A narrative review of the literature. Maturitas. 2015;81(4):432-438.
Advanced Components
Advanced Components was involved in a lawsuit in 2012, Dan Miller was terminated on October 6, 2009, and the next day his position was filled by a 30-year-old man. Advance Components' executive vice president and general manager, Gary Craven, made ageist comments to Dan Miller, a 64-year-old national sales manager, and finally fired him because of his age. Craven called Miller “old fashioned” and believed that having a younger person made them more “driven” (EEOC, 2012). Discriminating against an employee because of his age violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3-11-cv-2081-B in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlementthrough its conciliation process (Press release, 2012).
EEOC. 2012. Advanced Components Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit. Retrieved from. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/advance-components-settles-eeoc-age-discrimination-lawsuit