Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Essay

The Americans with Disabilities Act, protects individuals on the basis of mental or physical disabilities. The Age Discrimination in Employment protects individuals 40 years of age and older.

An employee bringing a suit must meet the McDonnell-Douglas Test. which came from the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case and in this case Keene met the requirements. First, an employee must belong to a protected class, in this case Keene was older than 40 years. Second, she also met the qualifications of job. Third, the employee must be rejected or suffer from another adverse job action. Keene was terminated from her job. Last, but not the least, the employer seeks another person with similar qualifications or treats the employee differently. The 61 year old employee was replaced with a 24 year old employee. Also, under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act, Dillard’s has over 40 employees and it cannot fire an employee based on age. While the plaintiff established prima facie, the defendant failed to provide a successful defense or preponderance of evidence (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014, p. 444). It is illegal to make employment decisions based on age.

Brooks Pharmaceuticals have to prove that discrimination against these employees was not because of their age. The dismissal of theses employees was solely based on their performance. Failure by the company to prove the fact, there would be legal problems for the organization.

According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.), “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on their age and it applies to both job applicants and employees. With regards to condition, any term or privilege of employment, it is against the law under the ADEA to discriminate against a person because of his/her age which includes layoff promotion, compensation, hiring, firing, training, job assignments and benefits. It is also unlawful for an employer to discriminate against anyone for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing as age discrimination charge, testifying or participating in an in an investigation proceeding or litigation under the ADEA” (para.1).

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) passed in 1967. It was intended to protect the older half of the workforce from age discrimination in the workplace. Several of the major provisions of the ADEA include: protecting what a worker has earned in his/her tenure, allowing workers to oppose practices that are considered unlawful by the ADEA without consequence, and prevent employers and employment agencies from discriminating

This says it is unlawful for an employer or potential employer to discriminate against you at work because of your age.

The company is in direct violation of the ADEA of 1967 which states (2)“certain applicant and employees who are 40 years of age and older are protected from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” In this case the 68 year old employee could sue the company based on Age Discrimination and win.

As described on Facts About Age Discrimination (2008), the ADEA provides protection against age discrimination for both applicants and employees during the hiring and employment termination process. For employees the ADEA protects against age being a factor in opportunities for promotion, assignment of benefits and selection for layoffs. With few exceptions the ADEA prohibits employers from including age as a criterion when advertising or posting notice for available jobs. The ADEA explicitly protects “whistleblowers” against retaliation as a result of filing an age discrimination

The United States workforce is aging and as health care improves the older population is living longer. Because of this older individual are staying the job market longer, an employer or human resource person should keep this in mind and possibly review the office procedures and hiring processes. Age discrimination claims will continue to increase as the workforce continues to grow older. Human resources, managers, and employers must be proactive versus reactive to have policies in place in the event of a suit happens. There is more to discrimination than what is on the surface of things. According to Walsh, in his book Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 4th Edition, “discrimination can be further separated into four legal theories, these being: disparate treatment, adverse impact, failure to reasonably accommodate, and retaliation” (Walsh, 2013). One of the main reasons for disparate treatment is that employers must be very careful not to base their decisions about their employees on a protected class’s characteristics. So what exactly is the key issue in disparate treatment? According to Walsh, discriminatory intent is the key. Whether or not the motive was intentional the policy maker created policy that was in violation of the ADEA.

Age discrimination has long been present in society due to the rapid development happening around us. According to Farney, Aday & Breault (2006), this era of ageism is defined as "discrimination against any age group", but it often is pointed to age discrimination among adults which is slowly causing a negative effect for them in the workplace. In the workplace, adults with more experience and longer history behind them are targets of this ageism belief that companies and employers tend to have (Farney, Aday, & Breault, 2006). They are shunned and even fired in favor of accepting new and fresh faces for the company they have worked for. Unknown to most companies and employers, this notion of favoring the young and banishing the old can

Age discrimination in employment is a complex issue which impacts many areas of Government policy and has many implications for individuals themselves. Age discrimination can occur across all spectrums of employment and can affect both young and old. Age discrimination can affect a person’s chances of getting a job, and potentially their chances of promotion or development within the workplace. Age can also be a factor when employers are deciding who should be selected during a workforce downsize or redundancy of work due to a mergers and acquisitions.

The Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) was passed over 40 years ago (in 1967) prohibiting the denial of employment, forced retirement, hours of employment, compensation, or termination of individuals due to the person's age, and it was meant to encourage the employment of older individuals based on their abilities and invaluable experience. However, age discrimination and ageism still permeate American society and the workplace.”(Tate)

“Sketchy evidence that older workers experience discrimination because of their age is easy to find. The popular press includes many stories of individual employees who have been replaced by younger workers, sometimes just before they become eligible for lucrative retirement benefits. Older workers (in the past) were forced by mandatory

Age discrimination is an issue today, more than ever especially when companies seek to avoid having to pay retirement or medical benefits and do so by firing older employees who might be about to invest in their pension or who might need medical attention. Another reason is that older employees may be paid more than new hires, so companies replace older workers with new workers just for that reason. This type of change is in addition to those who are simply biased against older workers and who take any opportunity to remove older works and bring in new blood