Welcome to Employment Job Discrimination Information Guide
Court Opinion Employment Discrimination Hiring Article
. For a permanent link to this article, or to bookmark it for further reading, click here.
You may also listen to this article by using the following controls.
The Value Of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act Of 1967
from:The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 forbids employment discrimination against those 40 years of age or older. Within the act there are also prohibitions against denying older workers benefits and mandatory retirement (unless the person is an executive over the age of 65 entitled to larger than average annual pensions).
Congress wrote the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to combat the rising trend in firing and failure to hire older workers in favor of younger workers. It was a common conception that workers 40 years and over did not have the same abilities or willingness to acquire new skills as a fresh crop of employees, largely amplified by the invidious tendency toward firing older workers with higher pay and replacing them with younger workers eager to accept a position for less money.
This social paradigm is reverberated within the text of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967: “the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for job performance has become a common practice.” It indicates that the burden of this shortsightedness exacerbates the economy.
Age discrimination may take shape in subtle ways that are difficult to prove. An employer might decline hiring an older worker simply because they feel they do not have long term career outlook with the company, or perhaps assume that a worker over 40 would have health ailments that could decrease their productivity. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 may not outright debunk these myths, but it offers a protection for older workers from prejudice in the workplace – one that pays.
Lawsuits involving age discrimination are among the highest payouts in employment discrimination cases. Unlawful termination like this can lead to an employer having to pay lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, and attorneys fees. Considering these are often cases involving workers who have higher positions as they have moved up the corporate ladder, these punitive damages can be quite high.
A recent case is that of Best Buy versus 44 former IT workers who claim they were discharged and replaced by younger workers. Best Buy settled the case in June of 2007. And in July of 2007, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found Nassau in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and estimates $450,000 in punitive damages to be paid to four wrongfully terminated employees.
What the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 may have helped highlight is the fact that older workers are often those with a wide breadth of knowledge, range of skills, and years of experience under their belts. This offers invaluable contributions and potential to an employer and can reduce costs in training more experienced workers over younger, newer candidates.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 was later amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act in 1986 and fortifies by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Court Opinion Employment Discrimination Hiring News
EEOC Rules That Transgender Employees are Covered Under Title VII - JD Supra (press release)
EEOC Rules That Transgender Employees are Covered Under Title VII JD Supra (press release) Holder, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EEOC's ruling arose out of a complaint of discrimination ... |
Teacher fired over pregnancy can sue religious school - Thomson Reuters News & Insight
 Thomson Reuters News & Insight | Teacher fired over pregnancy can sue religious school Thomson Reuters News & Insight Overturning a lower court ruling in the school's favor, the Atlanta-based US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Jarretta Hamilton was entitled to a trial on her claims of pregnancy discrimination by the Southland Christian School Inc in ... |
EEOC: Transgender Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act - Human Resource Executive Online
 Fox News | EEOC: Transgender Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act Human Resource Executive Online By Katie Kuehner-Hebert A landmark opinion that states federal employers will be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they discriminate against transgendered employees or job candidates is being heralded as a "game-changer. EEOC Issues New Criminal Background Check Guidelines for Employers EEOC Pronounces Protections for Transgendered Workers Jackson Lewis | Title VII Prohibits Discrimination against Transgender Workers ... |
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ruling Protects Transgender Individuals - JD Supra (press release)
 PR Web | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ruling Protects Transgender Individuals JD Supra (press release) by Cullen and Dykman LLP on 5/7/2012 On April 23, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held in a landmark decision, that transgender individuals who are discriminated against may now have recourse under Title VII of the Civil ... EEOC provides updated guidance on use of criminal records in employment ... |
For Uncle Sam, issues of same-sex bias, transgender equality - Washington Post
For Uncle Sam, issues of same-sex bias, transgender equality Washington Post The Obama administration has told government agencies that a court decision allowing health benefits for the same-sex spouse of a federal employee applies to no one else. The directive from the Office of Personnel Management is not surprising. |