Age discrimination Essay

Discrimination against older worker occurs so oftentimes that Congress firebrand an bet to protect older workers from discrimination this helps preclude increased un pr doice session for those older than 40 years of senesce. In 1967, congress made the period Discrimination in Employment Act for the purpose of promoting the use of goods and services of older workers based on their ability instead of their age. This act applies to employment by public and private employers and by the unions and employment agencies, as well as foreign companies that beget more than 20 workers located present in the United States.In 1967 the act coered employees between the ages of 40 and 65, the upper line was extended 70 in 1978 and so the limit was removed completely later on. Now there is no yearlong an upper age limit, a 79 year old may be just as qualified as a 30 year old and should have the opportunity to recruit her or his qualifications and harbor employment base on them. Anothe r issue with this act is authorization retirement for the most part this has become a thing of the past. It should in addition be mentioned that people are living longer lives today and this act will become more and more critical for the working employees in this country.Title VII and the duration Discrimination act are standardized in several ship domiciliateal, and both are enforced by the EEOC. exclusively these two acts are different in two important ways The come along Discrimination In Employment Act is more lenient than Title VII regarding the latitude afforded employers reasons for adverse employment decisions (). The Age Discrimination In Employment act allows an employer to argue that a prima(predicate) facie of age discrimination by identifying any factors other than age that has helped make the decision. The other difference is the Age Discrimination in Employment act only protects employees that are over 40 years of age from discrimination. So, a person at a l ower place 40 cannot file a claim under this act based on the claim that he or she was withal young. But there are some states that have laws that could be depict as reverse discrimination in situations like this.In an Age discrimination case there are several different questions and points that mustinessiness(prenominal)(prenominal) be answered. The following will help describe some of this diagnose issues in a case like this. The employee feels that he or she has been discriminated against because ofthe employees age. The employee may file an effect against the employer under the ADEA and parent age discrimination. The employee must establish the following four elements to prove to the court that she or he has a claim for age discrimination. The employee must prove that he or she was demoted or fired because they were 40 years or older. They simply must prove that they are older than 40 years of age, therefore reservation themselves a member of a protected class. Advers e employment achievement taken against the employee, this is proof that the employer made an employment decision that adversely impact the employee in question. This could include a decision not to make the applicator or even fire the employee. Another thing the employee must prove is that he or she is qualified for the position. The position urgencys must be proved and not just devised for the purpose of terminating or refusing to hire older workers. The employee must show that he or she can perform their duties at a high level or they may face not be able to continue with their claim. Disclaimer Treatment, this requires an employer to explain there actions if they terminate of refuses to hire an older qualified employee, while at the same time hiring a younger person. This requirement has presented difficulty for the courts. Employers say in the matter, this is where the employer must prove that they did not hire or terminated an older employee because of other reasons. The magnetic core of proof now shifts to the employer to present a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for their actions against the employee. They must prove that there are good reasons for their actions. The EEOC identifies what an employer must prove in an age discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment act as the age limit is reasonably inevitable to the essence of the employers business. All or most all of the individuals over that age are unable to perform the jobsrequirement adequately or some of the people over that age posses a disqualifying trait that cannot be ascertained except by cite to the age of the employee. This element of proof allows an employer to exclude an older worker from a position that may be unsafe to some older workers. This development can be obtained by OSAH databases that have included worker age as being part of the reasoning for their actions. Disparate treatment and disparate impact.One court case that has helped def ine this act is the case of Steen v. cheerfulness Oil attach to. Paul Steen was discharged by fair weather Oil Company after working for them for 19 years. Steen claimed that that he was fired because of his age, but Sun Oil rebuts by standing that Steens discharge was necessary action in the companys overall reorganization process. Steen had statistics that proved that an intermediate age of employees retained was 35 and the average of the employees that were let go was 48. Steen withal had a letter from the company that stated a plan of the reorganization would be a better age distribution of executive force out. This court case is similar to many that have used the Age and Discrimination in Employment act as grounds for character in court cases.One recommendation that I would have for heed to follow is not to have interest in the age of employees. If they can perform the job at a high level then they are good enough to remain a part of the company. I have seen in many c ases in the job I have now of where many of the most valuable employees are often those over the age of 50. They are often the employees with the most experience and act as a teacher to the younger employees.