Economic development and its impact on older workers
Economic development has led to the improvement of living standards across the United States and other developed countries. Improvement of institutions such as healthcare as evidenced by the success of Medicare and Medicaid has increased life longevity. By implication, this development has increased the number of older people with the potential to work in different industries. Research has shown that 20% percent of the whole population is composed of people aged sixty-five years and above. However, the youth-centered culture where age measures functionality and productivity continues to pose a threat to these older workers. Fortunately, the government through legislation has managed to control this setback in a bid to protect older workers' social interests. This paper attempts to discuss the legal aspect of age discrimination and the current controversies surrounding this area.
Legal Law on Age Discrimination
The state through legislative initiatives has attempted to regulate discrimination against older workers since the beginning of the 20th century. Even though not all states eradicated age limits among employees during this era, most of them extended age limits in favor of older workers (Cheung et al. 118). They also agreed that not a single employer should turn back an employee or discharge them their duties on the basis of age as long as they were working according to their line of business. Furthermore, legislatures argued that it was unethical to turn away workers as long as they are physically and mentally qualified to work and satisfactorily perform their duties.
Most of the Statutes developed in the 20th century were meant to protect workers between forty and sixty-five years of age. However, some states extended this age limit either downward or upward depending on their demographic structures. For instance, Oregon's statute covered people between twenty-five and sixty-five years. When states were formulating their individual legal statutes, private firms, employment agencies and the labor unions were their most probable targets. Criminal penalties, administrative and civil remedies were the consequences of these legal violations.
Age discrimination was still an imminent danger in various states since there was no single federal law illegalizing this act. However, other classes such as sex, color and race were included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until 1965 when the secretary of labor issued a preliminary report preserving age discrimination as equally life demeaning as other classes of discrimination in the country.
Current Laws on Age Discrimination
Implementation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is the reason older workers are enjoying a conducive working environment. Currently, the legal requirements are that older workers should be allowed to work based on their abilities and not their age. The law also helps employers to solve various problems arising from age employment. Currently, this act helps employers to find the right age when an employees should be displaced to avoid a high rate of unemployment.
Currently, the justice system has improved as more cases regarding age discrimination are presented in courts. However, proving age discrimination claims is a major challenge to many courts. Therefore, most judges are forced to depend on precedents and rulings from the Supreme Court. Besides, all cases are guided by the age discrimination act. In Gross versus FBL Financial Services (2009), the court held that such cases should be backed by age discrimination as the primary factors for them to be admissible in any court.
Type of Laws
The age discrimination laws are largely composed of statutory laws. However, the law also uses several precedents from the Supreme Court as the source of laws. Therefore, these laws use both statutory and common laws to solve challenges surrounding it. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was legislatively instituted through the congress hence referred as the statutory law. However, the court has frequently used cases such as Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool corp (1983) to rule subsequent cases. The use of both statutory and common laws shows that the current law is more efficient than the previous statutory laws (Hunter, Shannon and Amoroso 73).
Development of the Age Discrimination Laws
These laws were developed after the congress ordered the secretary of Labor, Willard Wirtz to assess the state of age discrimination in employment through a study. After one year, the Labor secretary presented a report that indicated that half of the available jobs in private sectors were as a result of disqualifying older workers (Hunter, Shannon and Amoroso, 71). The study also indicated that a quarter of workers aged above forty-five workers were also disqualified to allow younger employees to take their positions. As a response to all these concerns, the Congress carried out several hearings regarding discrimination in employment. These hearings spurred the Congress to take strict measures after they revealed more troubling statistics regarding age discrimination. Furthermore, it was evident that this problem was going to worsen if strict steps were not taken to curb the problem (Hunter, Shannon and Amoroso 72, para 1). In response to this threat, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was enacted into law in 1967.
The Need for Age Discrimination Laws
ü To eliminate negative stereotypes
The law seeks to eradicate negative stereotypes affecting older people in workplaces. Research has shown that negative stereotypes tend to affect these workers' productivity. It also affects employers' hiring ability by impairing their decision-making processes. Secondly, there are beliefs that older employees are productive for a short period compared to the training and experienced achieved while working in different firms. In other words, the age discrimination law comes in to solve this problem. Other researchers concur that age discrimination is a negative feature of employers since older workers tend to stay longer whereas younger employees are more likely to quit (Abrams, Swift and Drury 107).
ü Restorative effect
The main impact of ADEA was to bring a restorative effect on employment. Once age discrimination cases are brought before the courts, they are meant to bring relief by eliminating all the unwanted practices. This practice also restores positions to the aggrieved and prevents similar cases of discrimination in the future. The Act's goal is to compensate for injuries suffered through unlawful perceptions as affirmed by the Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp case of 1983 (Hunter, Shannon and Amoroso 73).
ü Provide compensation to affected persons
Employees are entitled to compensation for damages after suing their employers successfully. ADEA's main role is to ensure that these damages are compensated depending on the extent of discrimination and damages suffered. ADEA claims that there are several categories of damages and their corresponding compensations. However, these categories differ according to the state and federal laws used.
The Lost Back and Future Pay suggest that employees can recover their lost wages. Successful suing helps employees to recover wages lost as a result of discrimination from their employers. Secondly, Lost Benefits claims that an employee can recover the monetary value of the fringe benefits that have been lost due to displacement. This form of compensation is common in many states.
Older people are closely linked to pain and suffering. This assumption implies that age discrimination affects them even more. The state laws have introduced damages and emotional damages whereby employees are compensated for the pain and sufferings they undergo. However, employees are not entitled to these damages under the IDEA but rather the state laws. Lastly, punitive damages are a form of punishment against employers engaging in intentional discrimination. It serves as a warning to other employers and encourages employees to report similar cases for higher compensation. The court requires a higher form of proof from the plaintiff underlying the claim for them to receive the compensation.
ü Protect employers
The age discrimination act does not give an absolute prohibition against age in employment decisions. In fact, the law is not applicable in areas where workers' age is of paramount importance to the operation of a business. Besides, the state and local governments have set certain age limits that lead to automatic retirement especially in criminal justice areas such as public safety and firearm holding. However, the law requires employees to consider several elements before forcing their employees to retire. First, they are required to have a bona fide plan for their employees. These actions should also observe all the terms covering both workers and their employers. Lastly, these plans should not be used as plans to avoid the statute (Hunter, Shannon and Amoroso 75). The Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (1990) was passed by the public to ensure that an employee relieves an employer from a discrimination claim knowingly and voluntarily.
ü Protecting the employees
Employee protection is the main objective of ADEA and other subsequent precedents made in Supreme Court cases. First, the law attempts to promote the ideology that older people should be hired based on their ability to work rather than their age. Additionally, the law prevents arbitrary discrimination on the basis of age in employment and instead helps to solve various challenges raised by age difference in employment. Moreover, the law also seeks to solve difficulties experienced by older people when trying to retain their jobs or finding new employers once they are displaced.
Important Cases under This Law and Their General Impacts
Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp (1983)
Spagnuolo was demoted at the age of fifty-three years by his employer and his position taken by a forty-year-old worker. The plaintiff worked at a lower position for some time before submitting a letter of resignation and filing a suit against Whirlpool. In this suit with his former employer, the plaintiff claimed that he was discriminated on the basis of age under ADEA. Spagnuolo added that discrimination was willfully and that he had suffered damages from the act.
This case affected other subsequent cases after it offered sufficient relief to Spagnuolo. The court held that it was important to put discrimination victims back to their position before the act took place. This decision showed that other decisions made by courts should consider restoring the plaintiff's standards rather than just compensating them. This action protects employers from excessive penalties and at the same time compensating employees for their sufferings.
Harpring v. Continental Oil Co. (1980)
Harping submitted a claim that his employment was shackled and all his duties reassigned to a younger employee. However, Harpring was hired to carry out these duties. He was instead signed other more duties and required to complete them in ninety days for him to retain his job. The court ruled against his employer since they failed to prove that Harpring was discharged from his duties for a good cause.
The court ruled that continental oil company was allowed to discharge employees for a good cause. However, the court argued that the defendant must provide proof that their displacement was for a good cause and not an act of discrimination. This case requires employers to be careful when displacing workers.
Controversies Surrounding Age Discrimination
Despite the existence of legal regulations, age discrimination is still eminent among private employers. Recently, the U.S Employment Opportunity Commission reported that there are still disturbing statistics regarding older workers' discrimination. The problem is well documented, deeply entrenched and still a challenge to all American workplaces.
In conclusion
Age discrimination reduces the productivity of older workers (Cheung et al. 119). Failure to solve discrimination setbacks promotes the spread of negative stereotypes. Therefore, the Congress and other legislative bodies should support ADEA's provisions through funding and rolling out programs aimed at encouraging firms to hire older workers. Besides, the economic growth trends suggest that more workers will be required in different industries to meet different market demands. Therefore, seniors should be treated equally in workplaces to reduce negative implications from the age stereotypes.
Works Cited
Abrams, Dominic, Hannah J. Swift, and Lisbeth Drury. "Old and Unemployable? How Age-Based Stereotypes Affect Willingness To Hire Job Candidates." Journal of Social Issues, 72.1, 2016, pp. 105-121.
Cheung, Chau-kiu, Ping Kwong Kam, and Raymond Man-hung Ngan. "Age Discrimination in the Labor Market from the Perspectives of Employers and Older Workers." International Social Work, 54.1, 2010, pp. 118-136.
Hunter, Jr., Richard J., John H. Shannon, and Henry J. Amoroso. "A Fresh Look At An Old Problem-Age Discrimination In Employment: Is There A Demographic And Political Trap?." Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 8.1, 2018, p. 68.
