Updated: Overcoming Age Discrimination in Employment

smokeI have updated my book, Overcoming Age Discrimination in Employment,  to include an important appeals court decision involving age discrimination in hiring.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta,  ruled last year that older job applicants have no protection whatsoever from systemic and calculated age discrimination in hiring – also known as disparate impact discrimination – under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., technically affects only Georgia, Florida and Alabama. However, it could influence other federal circuits or lead to a difference in opinion between the circuits that ends up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit’s decision was shocking because evidence in the case showed the defendant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, hired two staffing agencies (Pinstripe and Kelly) to use internet software to weed out the resumes of applicants for a territory sales manager job who had more than eight years of experience. An estimated 20,000  older job applicants filed on-line applications for the  position; their applications were diverted to a digital trash can sight unseen.

Writing for the majority, Judge William Pryor held that the disparate impact provision of the ADEA only creates a cause of action for employees and cannot be the basis of a claim by a job applicant. The majority rejected the EEOC’s position that the ADEA does permit disparate impact lawsuits by job applicants, ruling the EEOC  was not due any deference.

Few would argue that age discrimination in hiring is devastating to older workers, many of whom are forced into a financially ill-advised early retirement and end up in poverty in their old age.

My book, Overcoming Age Discrimination in Employment, originally published in Jan. 2016, helps individuals and employers understand  key provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and how the law is interpreted by the federal courts.  It was a follow up to an earlier book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, where I argue for repeal of the ADEA. Age should be added as a protected class to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin. That way at least older workers would have equal rights under the law.

The ADEA was weak and riddled with loopholes when it was adopted 50 years ago. Since then it has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts (like the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals).

Older workers literally have been second class citizens under federal law for 50 years. Isn’t that long enough?

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Legal ‘Pacs’ Lobby for Age Discrimination in Hiring

inequality scaleIt would be a public relations nightmare for a single American corporation to wage the battle against older workers that is going on in federal court right now.

That’s why major American corporations are hiding behind the equivalent of  “legal” super PACs (political action committees) to make their case. These PACs are akin to “political” super PACs that allow big donors to influence the course of national U.S. elections.

These legal super PACs, with their deep corporate pockets, include:

  • The Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC), which calls itself “a nationwide association of employers organized in 1976 to promote sound approaches to the elimination of employment discrimination.” When you read the name, you may think the organization promotes equal employment but, alas, it lobbies for a membership base that includes “over 250 major U.S. corporations” whose primary interest is economic,  not equal rights.
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce describes itself the “world’s largest business organization.” It represents the interests of more than 3 million businesses, including leading industry associations and large corporations. The chamber claims it protects business interests in Washington, D.C. but it also lobbies federal courts around the country.

The EEAC and the Chamber both have filed briefs to protect employers “rights” to engage in blatant age discrimination in hiring in the case of Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., etc. Continue reading “Legal ‘Pacs’ Lobby for Age Discrimination in Hiring”