Sunday, May 6, 2018

“Too Experienced” = Age Discrimination, Say Courts


Three age discrimination cases are making legal waves.
CASE 1: AARP is representing Dale Kleber in a lawsuit against CareFusion, a medical instrument firm, because of the way they advertised a corporate lawyer job. The company said an applicant had to have seven years or less in experience, in addition to other qualifications. Kleber, who was 58 when he applied, brought a disparate treatment claim alleging the company violated the ADEA by hiring a younger, less qualified applicant. On April 26th, the federal appeals court in Chicago agreed with Kleber’s legal argument: Even though the hiring criterion did not mention age, it effectively filtered out a very high percentage of otherwise qualified applicants over 40. His case will go to trial (or be settled). The case is Kleber v. CareFusion.
CASE 2: A trendy chain restaurant— Seasons 52—settled an age discrimination lawsuit with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) on Thursday for $2.85 million. The lawsuit accused the company of refusing to hire “old white guys” and other applicants over 40 in order to maintain a youthful image. Applicants were told they were "too experienced" and that the company was "not looking for old white guys," among other comments, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from complaints filed with the EEOC in 2010 by two men who were turned down for jobs at a Seasons 52 in Coral Gables, Florida.
In addition to the payout, the company agreed to post pictures of “age diverse staff” on its social media accounts, and eliminate questions asked at job interviews that could reveal an applicant’s age, according to the filing.
CASE 3: Last year, restaurant chain Texas Roadhouse, settled a similar age discrimination case for $12 million. The EEOC claimed that the company routinely rejected job applicants over 40 for front-of-the-house positions such as waiters and bartenders. The company destroyed emails, job applications and records of job interviews during the EEOC’s investigation.
CREDIT: LIVELIFEHAPPY.COM


No comments: