Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
T.... Hiring an applicant aged 35 over an applicant aged 50, both of whom have similar qualifications for the job, and preferring the younger worker because of the worker's age is also discriminatory BUT unlawful.
The problem is that the applicant who is 50 can't prove this. The excuse is "the 35 yr old was a better fit" or some other nebulous convenient lie. The 50 yr old could have had botox, no gray hair (dye), worked out to look like an athlete and be "social media" adept - but alas, if the interviewer or decision maker has a bias against "50 yr olds" all of that is useless.
Hiring an applicant aged 35 over an applicant aged 50, both of whom have similar qualifications for the job, and preferring the younger worker because of the worker's age is also discriminatory BUT unlawful.
No one is preferred because of their age alone. Age is just a number. They are preferred because of facts or assumptions related to age. One of those assumptions, which I'm trying to point out in this thread, is that how far you are in your life with respect to your age is a determining factor in your worth as an employee. If you are over 30 and have no work experience or schooling to fill in the "gaps", then you can kiss goodbye any hopes you have of working for a "top" company. Lucrative companies want people who are 22 years old with 2 years of work experince, 23 years old with 3 years of work experience, ..., 30 years with 10 years of work experience and many promotions, etc.
The problem is that the applicant who is 50 can't prove this. The excuse is "the 35 yr old was a better fit" or some other nebulous convenient lie. The 50 yr old could have had botox, no gray hair (dye), worked out to look like an athlete and be "social media" adept - but alas, if the interviewer or decision maker has a bias against "50 yr olds" all of that is useless.
Another hard thing to prove is religious discrimination.
Lucrative companies want people who are 22 years old with 2 years of work experince, 23 years old with 3 years of work experience, ..., 30 years with 10 years of work experience and many promotions, etc.
Seems like what they want today is someone who is 30 years old, who has at least 20 years experience, including 10 in a product that has only been out for 2, and is willing to work for the pay of a 17 year old.
The problem is that the applicant who is 50 can't prove this. The excuse is "the 35 yr old was a better fit" or some other nebulous convenient lie. The 50 yr old could have had botox, no gray hair (dye), worked out to look like an athlete and be "social media" adept - but alas, if the interviewer or decision maker has a bias against "50 yr olds" all of that is useless.
It's difficult, but not impossible. Some of the largest verdicts in favor of employees arise from age discrimination cases.
No one is preferred because of their age alone. Age is just a number. They are preferred because of facts or assumptions related to age. One of those assumptions, which I'm trying to point out in this thread, is that how far you are in your life with respect to your age is a determining factor in your worth as an employee. If you are over 30 and have no work experience or schooling to fill in the "gaps", then you can kiss goodbye any hopes you have of working for a "top" company. Lucrative companies want people who are 22 years old with 2 years of work experince, 23 years old with 3 years of work experience, ..., 30 years with 10 years of work experience and many promotions, etc.
Employees and employers spend too much time arguing about whether age discrimination will be proven. The truth is, under current federal law that requires showing that but for age, the decision would not have been made, the standard is nearly impossible to meet. But discrimination disputes rarely get resolved by juries (or judges) that have to decide that question. More often, the disputes get resolved through compromise. So the point is that what really matters is whether an employer's decision looks like it is based on age discrimination. It doesn't have to be actually proven for an employer to have to play plenty to defend itself against the charge. As a result, the dispute get settled through compromise.
The differences you are talking about may be real. But as long as the workers are all under 40, age discrimination is a non-factor. IF one worker is over 40 and the other under, then an employer needs to start worrying when the decision looks like age discrimination even if it is not actually age discrimination as required to be proven under the law.
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone in the workplace because of their actual or assumed age.The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.You must refer convention collective automobile pdf http://www.convention-collective-auto.fr also shows the similar agreements for employment.
My husband has a PhD. Part of his curriculum was a business law class that was very interesting. With Age Discrimination suits, the age where the "burden of proof" shifts from the employee to the employer was 40 yrs old. Meaning, IF you have a complaint about age discrimination BEFORE the age of 40, YOU must prove the discrimination was against you because of "age". After that age, the burden of proof shifted to the employer to prove they were NOT discriminating against you because of your age. Interesting for sure.
And of course that means nothing to 40 and over, since employers have subtle and not so subtle ways of weeding us old farts out.
Laws never protected us, and I'd say the burden of proof on age discrimination is always biased against us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
