Age Discrimination In Employment Act Research Articles

Workplace Age Discrimination and Social-psychological Well-being

The research literature on workplace inequality has given comparatively little attention to age discrimination and its social-psychological consequences. In this article, we highlight useful insights from critical gerontological, labor process, and mental health literatures and analyze the patterning of workplace age discrimination and its implications for sense of job insecurity, job-specific stress, and the overall mental health of full-time workers 40 years old and above, covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Our analyses, which draw on two decades and five waves of the General Social Survey (2002–2018), reveal (1) the prevalence of self-reported workplace age discrimination and growing vulnerability particularly for those 60 years and above, (2) clear social-psychological costs when it comes to job insecurity, work-specific stress, and overall self-reported mental health, and (3) dimensions of status and workplace social relations that offer a protective buffer or exacerbate age discrimination’s corrosive effects. Future research on age as an important status vulnerability within the domain of employment and the implications of unjust treatment for well-being and mental health are clearly warranted.

The Strategic Importance of ADEA Compliance on Older Workers: Formal and Informal Practices

Despite the prominent use of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 by employees to protect themselves from discrimination in terms of age, research has rarely examined the impact of the importance attached to legal compliance by organizations on outcomes related to older workers. We adopt the institutional logic perspective to better understand the relationship of strategic importance of ADEA compliance on two formal (i.e., accommodation and development practices) and one informal (i.e., age diversity climate) older worker-related organizational practices. Moreover, we extend our model to examine outcomes of the three organizational practices as related to the accumulation of older worker-specific human capital reservoir. To test our theoretical model, we analyze two-wave data from a random sample of active members of the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM). We found that, organizations that attached high strategic importance to ADEA compliance were more likely to implement both formal and informal older worker-related organizational practices. We further found that development practices for older workers were positively related to knowledge transfer from older workers, and age diversity climate was negatively related to retention and recruitment difficulty of older workers, but positively related to knowledge transfer from older workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Age Discrimination by Platforms

This Essay explores how platforms in the workplace (both social media and hiring platforms) might enable, facilitate, or contribute to age discrimination in employment. The Essay starts with evidence of age discrimination on popular platforms particularly with regard to design elements used to redline, dissuade, or cull older applicants. It then presents the challenging legal issues raised by the mediation of such discriminatory practices by a platform, notably in regards to proof of both disparate treatment and disparate impact. The Essay then puts forth a three-part proposal to combat age discrimination in the face of platform authoritarianism. Those proposals include: 1) education regarding the use of ageist language in job ads; 2) the reinforcement of the disparate impact cause of action for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) via codification; and 3) new EEOC guidelines for design and documentation requirements for job advertisement, recruitment, and hiring platforms.

A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship between Employer Characteristics and Age Discrimination Charge Filings

The study examines what the correlates are between age discrimination charges and employer characteristics using the longitudinal sample of 4000 establishments representing a random sample of establishments in the US. The study uses data on charges and establishments obtained through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Using the panel data approach, the results suggest that the strongest predictor of ADEA charges, is past ADEA charges against the employer. Other characteristics such as a smaller span of control (number of employees per manager), to some extent a greater proportion of minority employees, being a headquarters establishment, or being a federal contractor, are associated with more charges. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Employment Discrimination Based on Age: Part II: Applying the ADEA in Employment Scenarios: Discrimination, Idle Chatter, or Something Else?

This article is Part II of a study on the effects of age discrimination in the workplace. In Part I, we considered the origins of the debate on age discrimination and looked at the demographic information that led to the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1967. In Part II, we raise an important question: Is age discrimination still a real problem? The article analyzes the Act through an application to two employment scenarios by looking at the scope of protection, amendments to the original law, the costs of age discrimination to employers, important exceptions to the ADEA, defenses to ADEA charges, procedures for filing an ADEA claim, and waiver provisions. In addition, the article looks carefully at procedural requirements for filing an ADEA claim, remedies available to an aggrieved party, and to questions relating to retaliation by an employer. Finally, the authors consider the question of employer liability for actions undertaken by employers and other parties which are found to be in violation of the law. In doing so, the authors provide answers to the questions raised in the scenarios described at the outset of the article.

Ageism: A Powerful Nemesis for Effective Workplace Discrimination Law

Ageism is a powerful force in American life, and it includes not only biased actions directed against older people but also a wide range of harmful attitudes and stereotypes. Ironically, ageism even limits what law and legal institutions might accomplish in countering the growing problem of age discrimination in the workplace. This article underscores the weaknesses of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the nation’s most important statute regarding age discrimination and also the appellate case law interpreting that statue. The article then critiques the dismissal by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the great majority of employees’ claims that they have suffered age discrimination. Overall, the article argues that legislators, the U.S. Supreme Court, administrative law judges, and Americans in general must fully appreciate the subtle, complex, and pervasive workings of ageism in order to successfully shape and use age discrimination law to reduce the harm being done to older employees.

Limited Legal Recourse for Older Women's Intersectional Discrimination Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Older women compose a large share of labor force in the U.S. There are two federal statutes that can provide protection for older women against employers’ discriminatory behavior: the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). Theories and empirical evidence suggest that older women are more discriminated against for being old and female, but there is a concerning policy implication that current legislation does not provide adequate protection for older women. The main reason for this concern is that older women’s intersectional discrimination invokes age-plus-sex or sex-plus-age cause of action. However, the courts do not recognize this cause of action under the ADEA and they have mixed views on this issue under Title VII. This article discusses evidence of older women’s intersectional discrimination and the importance of recognizing this intersectionality in proof structure. It also reviews case laws and the effectiveness of the age discrimination laws on older women’s labor market outcomes. The findings indicate that the ADEA does not provide equal employment opportunities for older women. Older women’s legal recourse for their unique intersectional discrimination for being old and female is constrained under the ADEA and Title VII strictly due to legislative peculiarities in statutes intended to solve this exact problem.

Trends and Patterns in Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Charges.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects individuals aged 40 years and over from discrimination throughout the employment process. Using data on ADEA charges from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1993 to 2010, we present labor force-adjusted charge rates demonstrating that the highest charge rates are among those in the preretirement age range, and only the rate of charges among those aged 65 years and older has not decreased. We examine characteristics of ADEA charges including the prevalence of different alleged discriminatory actions (or issues) and highlight the increasing proportion of age discrimination charges that are jointly filed with other antidiscrimination statutes. Through a regression analysis, we find that the likelihood of citing various issues differs by charging party characteristics, such as age, gender, and minority status, and on charges that cite only age discrimination as compared to those that are jointly filed. Implications of these findings for employers are discussed.

Protecting Older Workers: The Failure of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

A growing number of older adults are finding that retirement is no longer affordable and they must work well into their later years. Unfortunately, over 42 years after passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, age discrimination in the workplace continues to present serious impediments to employment in later life. Using a critical gerontology perspective, this paper reviews the history of work-related age discrimination and analyzes the ADEA and its limited effectiveness at protecting the civil and economic rights of older workers. The authors discuss implications and suggest policy alternatives that would support the employment and enhance the economic well-being of older adults.

United States Employment Disability Discrimination Charges: Implications for Disability Management Practice

AbstractIt is 20 years since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, yet employment and economic inequities continue for people with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to inform and encourage disability management leading practices to contribute toward reducing these disparities. The approach is an examination of where in the employment process applicants and incumbent employees perceive employment disability discrimination, leading to the filing of charges against an employer. Employment disability discrimination claims filed by individuals over 15 years (1993–2007) with the United States (US) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies are studied. The authors analyse employment discrimination charges by year, basis (i.e., protected class characteristics, such as disability, age, or race), issue (i.e., actions of the employer, such as discharge, hiring, or harassment), employer characteristics (i.e, size of business and industry sector), and joint filings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (gender, race/ethnicity, and religious discrimination) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Special attention is paid to where in the employment process people with specific impairments are perceiving discrimination. Implications of these research findings for the practice and administration of disability management and employer policies are discussed.

International Comparison of Age Discrimination Laws.

European age discrimination legislation is discussed in the context of the US Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and related state laws. US law was originally introduced to protect productive older workers from age stereotypes, but more recently preventing age discrimination has become important as a means of keeping costs down on entitlement programs as the population ages. Changes in enforcement, penalties, exemptions, length of time to file, and burden of proof have changed the effects of the laws over time. The ADEA has had both positive effects on currently employed older workers and negative effects on the hiring of older workers. Enforcement and publicity are offered as possible explanations for the strength of these positive and negative effects. Age discrimination legislation in Europe, indicated in the Framework Directive 2000/78, is driven by economic and political considerations. European legislation calls for less enforcement and more exemptions than the corresponding US cases which could lead to smaller effects on employment. However, pensions, disability, unemployment, and social security potentially have a stronger effect on social norms for retirement age than does anti-discrimination legislation.

The American Experience with Age Discrimination Through the Lens of Nine Supreme Court Cases (2004-2009)

This Article is about the developing legal landscape of age discrimination law under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in the United States in the first decade of the current century. Age discrimination is an issue in many societies; the problem posed by age discrimination becomes acute in societies where the population is graying, which describes the United States. There are numerous ways to gauge this developing legal landscape. The authors have chosen to use nine Supreme Court cases decided in the current decade. Five of the nine were decided in 2008. These nine cases cover a very wide spectrum of topics, ranging from three of the theories under which ADEA cases are brought (disparate impact; disparate treatment; and retaliation) to practical questions like what constitutes a charge of age discrimination under the ADEA, to what defenses an employer can raise to an employee's claim of age discrimination, to what forms ofevidence are admissible. The Article also highlights three cases that involve pension eligibility, reverse discrimination, and the use of alternative dispute resolution (arbitration) to resolve age discrimination disputes. The Article concludes with the authors sharing with the reader some practical advice about how to avoid falling off the edge of ADEA law as the legal landscape continues to develop.

The Effect of Age Discrimination Laws on Age-Earnings Profiles of Postsecondary Faculty

This study investigates the impact of the abolition of mandatory retirement on earnings profiles of faculty in postsecondary institutions. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) excluded faculty from the protection of age discrimination laws until January 1, 1994, due to perceived adverse effects of this legislation on the academic labor market. After 1994, research has found that more faculty are remaining employed beyond the age of 70 and more institutions are offering early retirement plans. This study adds to the literature by finding that the policy change has steepened age-earnings profiles for cohorts entering the labor market, suggesting a stronger job attachment, and, potentially, efficiency gains.

Major EEO issues relating to personnel selection decisions

This paper examines recent EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) case law precedents relating to personnel selection, most notably hiring, training, promotion and downsizing. The statutes referenced include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Constitutional claims, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA-91), and Executive Order 11246 on Affirmative action. Seven topics are featured, including: (I) disparate treatment theory, (II) adverse impact theory in the ADEA, (III) adverse impact theory in Title VII, (IV) affirmative action based on operational needs, (V) key ADA rulings and the ADA amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), (VI) retaliation, and (VII) mandatory binding arbitration agreements. The case law surveyed reveals costly mistakes employers and HR managers can make, but which can be avoided with proper methods and policies. Some issues may require professional help (e.g., developing and validating selection tests), whereas others (e.g. retaliation), can be addressed in-house with knowledge of policies and procedures recommended by the EEOC to prevent problems from occurring, and to quickly correct them if they occur.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Challenge of Population Aging

The author reviews evidence on age discrimination in U.S. labor markets and on the effects of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in combating this discrimination, focusing on the challenge of population aging facing the U.S. economy in coming decades. Combating age discrimination is likely to help in meeting this challenge by encouraging the employment of older individuals. But the author also explores how the rapid aging of the population protected by the ADEA might inhibit the ADEA's effectiveness and raises questions about possible changes in age discrimination policies and enforcement that could enhance the ability of the ADEA to mitigate some of the adverse consequences of population aging.

Retaliation Lawsuits Held Applicable for Federal Employees Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Victory for Older Federal Workers

In a decision having much to do with what is implied in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) but not explicitly stated, the Supreme Court ruled that federal sector employees are not precluded from filing retaliation lawsuits under the ADEA. Relying on precedent decisions as well as established legislative intent, the Supreme Court rejected several arguments of the government in what the Court considered a narrow interpretation of the federal sector provision of the ADEA statute at §633a. The ruling affirmed that federal sector employees have the same protection as do private sector employees in all aspects of the ADEA statute.

State Age Protection Laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

This article exploits an unusual aspect of the policy for enforcement of the federal 1968 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which made filing an age discrimination claim less burdensome in some states. After the enforcement of the federal law, white male workers over age 50 in states where the federal government allows an easier filing procedure were .2 percentage points less likely to be hired than were workers in states without such laws. They also worked .8–1.3 fewer weeks per year and were .5–.7 percentage points more likely to report being retired, 1.6–1.8 percentage points more likely to report that they are not in the labor force, and 1.6– 3 percentage points more likely to report that they are not employed. These findings suggest that in an anti‐age‐discrimination environment, firms seek to avoid litigation through means not intended by the legislation—by not employing older workers in the first place.

State Age Protection Laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Some anti-discrimination laws have the perverse effect of harming the very class they were meant to protect. This paper provides evidence that age discrimination laws belong to this perverse class. It exploits an unusual aspect of the policy for enforcement of the federal 1968 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which made filing an age discrimination claim less burdensome in some states than in others. After the enforcement of the federal law, white male workers over age 50 in states where the federal government allowed 300 days to file a discrimination complaint worked between 1 and 1.5 fewer weeks per year than did workers in states without laws. These men were also .3 percentage points more likely to be retired and .2 percentage points less likely to be hired. These findings suggest that in an anti-age discrimination environment, firms seek to avoid litigation through means not intended by the legislation — by not employing older workers in the first place.

A Mixed Bag

In Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees may bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination inEmploymentAct(ADEA). Asaresult, olderworkerscannowpursuean ADEA claim if they are disproportionately harmed by a policy that their employer applies to its entire workforce, even if the resulting adverse impact on workers older than 40 is unintentional. This article reviews the ruling and discusses the implications of the revisions on the work of public personnel managers.

The ADEA, Disparate Impact Claims, and Compensation Adjustments

In 2001, 30 police officers and public safety dispatchers for Jackson, Mississippi, filed suit against the city, alleging they had been discriminated against because of age by the city's new performance pay plan. The city claimed its new performance pay plan was enacted to attract new police officers and to make the city's pay for all officers more competitive with comparable markets. Among their allegations, the officers claim that the city violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because officers aged 40 and older received proportionately smaller pay increases. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether an employer's neutral policy or practice can constitute a violation of the ADEA if it causes a disparate impact on older workers. The Supreme Court held that neutral employment practices causing a disparate impact on older workers might constitute a violation of the ADEA. However, the Court held that plaintiffs alleging such a claim not only have to show a statistical disparity disfavoring older workers but must also specifically identify the particular practice within the employer's decision-making process that caused the statistical disparity. Employers can defend such claims by showing the practice in question is based on a “reasonable” factor other than age. Although the Supreme Court found that the officers could bring a disparate impact claim under the ADEA, the Court held that the officers' claim failed. In dismissing the disparate impact claim, the Court said that the officers had failed to identify a specific practice within the new pay plan that caused the alleged age discrimination. The Court further held that the city's purpose behind the pay plan-making officers' compensation competitive with comparable jurisdictions-was “reasonable.”