Enterprise Rent-A-Car Picks Up $425,000 Penalty

EnterpriseEnterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Los Angeles, LLC, will pay $425,000 to settle charges that it refused to hire job applicants over the age of 40 for management trainee positions at its Burbank office between 2008 and 2011.

The company is a subsidiary of Enterprise Holdings, Inc., North America’s largest rental car company.

An investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that ten job applicants over the age of 40 were denied hire in favor of less qualified, younger applicants, a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC found that no applicants over 40 years of age were hired into the management trainee position at the Enterprise Burbank office during the three-year period. The EEOC also determined the office failed to adequately maintain application records pursuant to federal law. Continue reading “Enterprise Rent-A-Car Picks Up $425,000 Penalty”

Advertisements

Innovative EEOC Settlement in Age Discrim. Case

ideaThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reached an innovative settlement in the case of a New York-based legal employment agency that  rescinded an offer of employment to a 70-year-old attorney after learning of her date of birth.

Under the consent decree to settle the case, Strategic Legal Solutions agreed to implement a training program called the Strategic Senior Counsel Program (SSCP). The SSCP will provide free training to attorneys age 60 and over on how to conduct document review using eDiscovery software and technologies.

The firm must also pay the attorney the sum of $85,000, implement an anti-discrimination policy, provide annual training to all management and staff, post a notice regarding the case, and report annually to the EEOC for a three-year period.

The  70-year-old attorney was offered a temp position to perform document review by Strategic Legal Solutions but the offer was withdrawn when the firm learned of the candidate’s date of birth. When the attorney asked whether the withdrawal of the offer was based on her age, she was told that she would be put on the “do not use” list.

 

The settlement  helps not only the victim but other attorneys who are denied the right to work due to widespread age discrimination by law firms and legal search firms in the U.S.

According to the EEOC, anyone interested in participating in SSCP may contact Nicole Brello, recruiting assistant with Strategic Legal Solutions, for further information at nbrello@strategiclegal.com, or call (212) 944-9112 ext. 207. SSCP training sessions will take place both at 110 East 42nd Street, New York City and in Novi, Mich., a suburb of Detroit.

Kudos to the EEOC’s New York District Office. The case is EEOC v. Strategic Legal Resources, Inc. d/b/a Strategic Legal Solutions, Civil Action No. 14-CV-07762-VEC-GWG.

Last Gasp of White House Conf. on Aging

WHCOAA Sad Reflection on the State of Aging in the U.S.

“One of the best measures of a country is how it treats its older citizens.”

“We have to work to do more to ensure that every older American has the resources and support they need to thrive.”

There were a lot of hackneyed slogans at the seminal meeting of the once-in-a-decade White House Conference on Aging (WHCOA) – including the above observations by President Barack Obama.  U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez observed that “age is a state of mind.” Assistant Secretary of Aging Kathy Greenlee issued a memorable pronouncement that “a good old age is too good to lose.”

Innumerable middle-aged mostly-federal bureaucrats fawned about “this momentous day” and “this extraordinary conference” and a bevy of “experts” attempted to hawk products and services to viewers listening via the internet (i.e., Uber, Peapod Grocery Delivery, Eversave Technology, AARP brand partners,, etc.).

Greenlee was the moderator of the elder justice panel, which largely focused on the financial exploitation of older Americans. She was harshly critical of paid caregivers who financially exploited a veteran acquaintance, the perpetrator of a scam that targeted a grandparent, and a crooked financial planner who ripped off two older Americans. She never mentioned the mostly anonymous Wall Street pirates who were never prosecuted for stealing the homes and retirement savings of literally millions of older Americans during the Great Recession (2007 –   ) Continue reading “Last Gasp of White House Conf. on Aging”

Does the White House Conf. on Aging have Alzheimer’s?

WHCOA

What a difference a decade makes – unless you are The White House Conference on Aging (WHCOA).

Then it doesn’t seem to make any difference.

Today, the once-every-decade conference will hold its signature event after months of low-level activity sponsored mainly by the AARP, America’s leading purveyor of health insurance to older Americans (not to mention vacation travel, car repairs, telephone and internet service, etc. etc.).

The WHCOA  sent out emails Saturday detailing the agenda for the big event.

Apparently there was no time in the jam-packed schedule to discuss the financial havoc wrought upon older Americans by the worst recession in America in 100 years. Similarly,it does not appear the conference will address the epidemic of age discrimination in hiring that relegates older workers to chronic unemployment, low-paid work and a financially improvident “early retirement.” It’s almost as if this unpleasant chapter of American history, attributable to Wall Street pirates who were never prosecuted, never happened.

The conference will focus on care-giving, “planning for financial security at every age,” nutrition, “the power of inter-generational connections and healthy aging,” universal design and technology and the future of aging.

To add insult to injury, the organizers of the WHCOA are asking Americans to complete this sentence: “Getting older is getting better because …”

Is getting older getting better?

Continue reading “Does the White House Conf. on Aging have Alzheimer’s?”

Wrong Diagnosis by American Medical Assn?

The American Medical Association has plunged headlong into the controversy about age discrimination in the medical profession by adopting a plan to develop criteria to review “”Senior/Late Career”  doctors’ physical and mental health and patient care.

At its annual meeting last month, the AMA unanimously adopted a plan to spearhead an effort to evaluate elder healthcare providers’ on-the-job effectiveness. The plan was proposed by the AMA’s Council on Medical Education.

The action comes on the heels of a dispute at Stanford University, where the Faculty Senate in May demanded repeal of a 2013 requirement that medical faculty aged 75 and older undergo enhanced health screening and peer assessment to retain their jobs.

Like Stanford University, the AMA fails to provide any research or evidence whatsoever explaining why it is necessary to screen “senior” physicians.

The AMA policy states that it will “identify organizations that should participate in the development of guidelines and methods of screening and assessment to assure that senior/late career physicians remain able to provide safe and effective care for patients.” These organizations must then  “work together to develop preliminary guidelines for assessment of the senior/late career physician and develop a research agenda that could guide those interested in this field and serve as the basis for guidelines more grounded in research findings.”

Apparently, the AMA has decided there is a need for a plan and will now develop the research necessary to support that conclusion.

In the absence of any evidence that a plan is even necessary, one cannot help but speculate that ageist stereotypes against older workers have played a role in the AMA’s decision-making. These stereotypes include unsupported concerns that older workers are less competent, can’t learn new things, are rigid and quarrelsome, and refuse to accept they should step down and make room for younger doctors.. Continue reading “Wrong Diagnosis by American Medical Assn?”

Age Discrimination in the U.S. Financial Sector?

justiceWhat are the chances that a recent survey by an Australian recruiting firm that found widespread age discrimination in the financial sector there could be replicated here?

The firm, Marks Sattin, reports it surveyed 476 hiring managers in the accounting, banking and finance, insurance, and wealth management industries in Australia and found that three-quarters of those aged over 50 felt they had encountered age discrimination. Older workers were perceived as “resistant to change” (67 per cent), and “slow to learn” (37 per cent). Sattin reports that age discrimination was twice as prevalent as gender discrimination,.

Leuan William, director of Marks Sattins, called age discrimination the “white elephant in the room.” She said there were discussions around gender discrimination but age discrimination flew under the radar. “The result is a substantial number of mature candidates who are unable to get jobs, despite immense qualifications and experience. Australia needs to eradicate the stereotypes and adopt a pro-mature workforce culture,” Williams said. Continue reading “Age Discrimination in the U.S. Financial Sector?”

At the Intersection of Age and Sex Discrimination: Social Security

.According to the Social Security Administration, a much higher percentage of women who are aged 65 and older live in poverty or near poverty than do males who are aged 65 and older. The median income of individual males aged 65 and older was $29,327 in 2013 compared to $16,301 for individual females. Median means half earned more and half earned less

Bernie

When candidates for the U.S. Presidency talk about cutting Social Security benefits, a lot of women worry. That’s because women suffer from the cumulative negative impact of sex and age discrimination.

.According to the Social Security Administration, a much higher percentage of women who are aged 65 and older live in poverty or near poverty than do men who are aged 65 and older. The median income of individual males aged 65 and older was $29,327 in 2013 compared to $16,301 for individual females. Median means that half had a higher income and half had a lower income.

Women suffer discrimination all of their working lives, starting with a pay disparity in their first jobs that persists throughout their careers. Women suffer from pregnancy discrimination and the failure of the American workplace to accommodate the disproportionate burdens place upon women with children. Finally, women suffer age discrimination at least a decade before many men experience the problem.

The National Women’s Law Center reports that without Social Security, nearly half of women 65 and older would be poor.

In a 2013 study, the National Women’s Law Center found that nearly 2.9 million women aged 65 and older live in poverty compared to 1.3 million men. The poverty rate for older women was 12 percent, compared to 7 percent for older men. That’s almost twice as many women living in poverty than men! Poverty rates were particularly high for older women who are black (20 percent), Hispanic (23 percent) and Native American (21 percent).

So it has not been easy to read  a bevy of white male GOP presidential candidates  call for cutting Social Security as have Sen. Lindsey Graham and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.  They don’t even bother to address the degree to which American women in particular are forced to rely upon these exceedingly modest benefits just to survive. Continue reading “At the Intersection of Age and Sex Discrimination: Social Security”