Feds Defense of Discriminatory Hiring Program; It’s Legal?

PathwaysThe worst thing about the federal government’s policy of institutionalized age discrimination is that it undermines respect in the government’s promise to insure equal justice for all.

The Office of Program Management in Washington, DC, recently defended the Pathways “Recent Graduates” Program, which allows federal agencies to limit job vacancies to individuals who graduated from high school, technical school and college within the past two years.

Yasmin A. Rosa, who identifies herself as “lead EEO Specialist” for the OPM, states in a recent letter that the Pathways Program “does not discriminate against anyone” because it is legal under an executive order signed in 2010 by former Democratic President Barack H. Obama.

(So, wait a minute, slavery and denying women the right to vote weren’t discriminatory because they were legal?) Continue reading “Feds Defense of Discriminatory Hiring Program; It’s Legal?”

Advertisements

‘Start the Convo’ on Obama & Age Discrimination

The White House on Wednesday will hold a Summit on Worker Voice that supposedly will provide a historic opportunity to bring together workers, employers and labor leaders “to highlight the relationship between worker voice and a thriving middle class.’

But some voices will be missing.  The voices of those who have no work due to systemic, government-approved age discrimination in hiring.

The Obama administration has been deaf to the voices of older workers who are disproportionately mired in long-term unemployment because of the misguided and harmful policies of the Obama’s administration.

In 2010, President Obama signed an executive order establishing the Pathways “Recent Graduates” Program, which allows federal agencies to engage in age discrimination in hiring.  That order sends a signal to private sector employers that age discrimination in hiring is justified and will be tolerated.

To make things Starbucksworse,  U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez last summer announced his support for a program developed by Starbucks, Microsoft and Walmart, and other leading American corporations, called the “100,000 Opportunities Initiative.” The purpose of the program is to give 100,000 16- to 24-year-olds full and part-time jobs by 2018.
Starbucks couched the initiative as a well-intentioned effort to help young people who face systemic barriers to jobs and educations. Whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and civil rights laws generally do not allow employers to discriminate because they supposedly have good intentions. Besides, older workers also face systemic barriers to jobs. A recent report by AARP found that half of the people in the U.S. between the ages of 45 to 70 who lost their job during the last five years are still not working.

The Obama administration has effectively abandoned a 50-year-old policy of encouraging employment through discrimination-free efforts, such as through education and training.

Readers who think the government should get out of the business of age discrimination are encouraged to “start the convo” using Twitter and the hashtag #StartTheConvo:.

Five years later: Discriminatory Job Ads

Private employers are criticized for doing what the federal government does – engaging in blatant age discrimination in hiring.

 

There is renewed focus upon a discriminatory practice that has been around for many years –  job advertisements that use blatant code words to attract younger applicants and deter older applicants.

Fortune Magazine recently noted that employers in the media, advertising and tech industries, have begun advertising for “digital natives,” which is code for workers aged 30 or below.

This may be new to Fortune but I filed a complaint in September 2010 with the EEOC complaining about this very issue. I provided documentation showing that the major internet job search site for attorneys, ALM’s Lawjobs.com, featured literally hundreds of advertisements for attorney jobs containing blatant age limitations. I provided more than a dozen examples of discriminatory ads taken from the site.  Some of the ads sought attorneys who graduated during a defined and recent period of time, such as from 2004 to 2007.  Other ads sought attorneys with limited experience, such as three-to-five years of experience. Given that the average age of law school graduates is about 25 years of age, I felt these ads violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Indeed, the ads fundamentally were no different than the notorious “whites only” job ads of the Jim Crow era.

I took the step of filing an EEOC complaint because I felt attorneys should be both knowledgeable about age discrimination and serve as officers of the court who pledge to follow the law. Moreover, judges are plucked from the ranks of attorneys and it’s hard enough to win an age discrimination case. That attorneys and the search firms they hire to place their job advertisements felt no compunction about engaging in blatant age discrimination seemed to me to be indicative of a much wider problem.

I was disappointed, though not surprised, when the EEOC declined to pursue my complaint.  Continue reading “Five years later: Discriminatory Job Ads”

MADONNA AND AGE DISCRIMINATION

Very few female celebrities have publicly raised the issue of age discrimination.  Most hide from it as long as possible because they know it may be the death knell of their career. But Madonna has never been like other celebrities.

In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Madonna, 56, observes that no one would “dare say a degrading remark about being black or dare say a degrading remark on Instagram about someone being gay, but my age – anybody and everybody would say something degrading to me. And I always think to myself, why is that accepted? What’s the difference between that and racism, or any discrimination?”

The difference, Madonna, is that age discrimination has essentially been legalized in the United States.  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was weak to begin with and has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court. And Congress is completely apathetic about the issue. Continue reading “MADONNA AND AGE DISCRIMINATION”

OBAMA FORGOT TO FIGHT AGE DISCRIMINATION

“Obama will fight job discrimination for aging employees by strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act … .”  Source: Blueprint for Change (2008)

I was surprised when I recently read that President Barack Obama pledged in 2008 to strengthen the nation’s primary law prohibiting age discrimination, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Surprised because the ADEA is much weaker today than it was when Obama was running for President in 2008 . The ADEA was decimated by an adverse U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2009. Congress could have legislatively “fixed” the Court’s ruling but has failed to pass the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act for five years.  But I was most surprised because Obama himself is responsible for weakening the ADEA.

Obama signed an executive order in 2010 that allows federal agencies to discriminate against older workers by hiring “recent graduates” –  which is in direct contravention to the ADEA.  What message does it send to private employers when the U.S. government deems it appropriate to discriminate on the basis of age? Whether intended or not, Obama’s executive order serves as a green light for employers to engage in harmful, invidious age discrimination.

Meanwhile, Obama’s administration is in the process of planning a White House Conference on Agingthis year . Organizers so far have completely ignored the unaddressed epidemic of age discrimination in the workplace that is catapulting older workers into chronic unemployment, low wage jobs and forced early “retirement.”

The Conference recently announced it is partnering with the AARP, the nation’s leading purveyor of supplemental Medicare health insurance, to co-sponsor five regional forums to hear from the public “on issues such as ensuring retirement security, promoting healthy aging, providing long-term services and support, and protecting older Americans from financial exploitation, abuse, and neglect.” Promote healthy aging?  Hmmm … Do you have supplemental Medicare health insurance?

Obama’s unfulfilled campaign promise points to yet another reason that the problem of age discrimination is so prevalent in America today. Older Americans have failed to effectively marshal their resources  to insure that their interests are not forgotten by politicians the day after the election.   In hisState of the Union Address last week, President Obama focused on young families and the middle class and failed to even mention issues of particular concern to older Americans,

In my new book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I explore the reasons that age discrimination is treated like a lesser offense when compared with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.  I show that age discrimination is about perception, not reality.  It is about unfounded stereotypes and deep-seated animus. And it has a devastating impact on the health and welfare of older Americans.

* Originally published at abusergoestowork.com on January 25, 2015.