The Age Discrimination in Employment ActEssay Preview: The Age Discrimination in Employment ActReport this essayThe Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), signed and enacted in 1967, aims to protect individuals forty or older from discriminatory practices based on age in the workplace. Private employers with 20 or more employers are subject to the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Labor organizations, employment agencies, and federal, state, and local governments must also follow the guidelines of the ADEA. The essential purpose of the ADEA is to eliminate the prejudices that haunt older workers in the job market, and provide a remedy for persons who have been affected in the workplace due to their age. Likewise, the legislators who oversaw the drafting of the ADEA acknowledged that if the negative stereotyping persists regarding the ability and skills of older workers, then the national economy would dramatically suffer because displaced older workers would increase the need for unemployment benefits and government assistance. Moreover, discrimination based on age has a tremendous emotional cost on the spirit and esteem of the individuals affected. Furthermore, there is no evidence that supports the claim that an older worker will not perform as well in the workplace as a younger worker. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the regulatory agency responsible for investigating and managing age discrimination claims that arise under the ADEA.
Employers are prohibited from doing a number of things according to the terms of the Act. Employers cannot fail or refuse to hire an employee because of that persons age. They cannot limit, segregate, or classify its employees in a way that would deprive someone of employment opportunities because of their age. Also, they cannot reduce the wage rate of an employee based on their age. Finally, employers cannot indicate in notices or job advertisements a preference for a person of a certain age. Victims of age discrimination are subject to remedies found in the ADEA. These remedies include back pay, hiring, promotion, reinstatement, front pay, liquidated damages, or other legal or equitable remedies that are deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute. Additionally, the statute permits award for attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.
The Administrative Law Review Board (AOLB) of Arizona is the state program responsible for administering the Administrative Law Review Act. The AOLB is in charge of reviewing and enforcing the law and regulations promulgated to assure the effectiveness of the law and its enforcement. The AOLB publishes its policy statement and any regulatory actions of the AOLB. The AOLB also maintains its online blog where updates on its policies and information can be found. As with any other state agency, there is limited flexibility in terms of how to implement its regulations. There can be no assurance the implementation of any laws through the AOLB. In recent years a number of states have passed amendments to their law or regulations which would affect the effectiveness of these laws, but all to achieve a common goal of making sure the law in our state conforms to our state standards. The AOLB also regulates in a similar fashion to the Arizona Law School, the Institute of Human Rights & Disability, and the Arizona Public School System by granting, renewing, or reversing the provisions of the law, or allowing for change of policy and procedures for the purpose of enforcing that law without judicial review or any other such judicial review. The AOLB has no responsibility or authority for the effective enforcement of statutes found in the statute. The federal law enforcement system only regulates the extent to which an individual’s rights are respected in a given context; the AOLB has no role in that area. It is only applicable to the protection afforded to persons of a certain age by the United States Constitution (16 U.S.C. Sec. 13a-18a). The individual is not required to meet all of those requirements in order for the AOLB to hold him or her liable for any claim or liability. In our culture, it was difficult to understand the concept of “undermined liability.” Even though any claim or liability is protected by the law, these exceptions are not the only limitation that can be applied to the statute. If there is a “serious health or bodily injury” case, there can be no legal basis for a prosecution under the statutory provisions even though an injured spouse was responsible for the death or injury. In one state, for example, a state statute was adopted to invalidate a pregnant woman’s right to stay on the job. However, there were some exceptions that did not apply to this circumstance. In Illinois, for example, a statute was passed to bar certain public school teachers from firing or recusing from teaching students that are pregnant. However, the statute was challenged even though it was unconstitutional in the Illinois case (1939 Illinois, 576 F.2d 717). In Oklahoma, for example, the Board authorized the Board to impose a civil penalty upon a teacher involved in a civil litigation that had been commenced after he was reprimanded for violating his duty to school the child. This statute was also challenged in one Illinois court in 1977. At the time it was challenged, the Illinois school district would have been required to pay the school district $5.75 per hour for teacher health care, which was covered by that statute and was in all cases covered under the Illinois statute. In a similar situation, a similar state law was passed to address a non-smoking-related employment situation on public housing. The Board found that the statute did not apply and would be detrimental to public safety. In Arkansas, the Board proposed a similar statute. The Board recommended that the Board
The Administrative Law Review Board (AOLB) of Arizona is the state program responsible for administering the Administrative Law Review Act. The AOLB is in charge of reviewing and enforcing the law and regulations promulgated to assure the effectiveness of the law and its enforcement. The AOLB publishes its policy statement and any regulatory actions of the AOLB. The AOLB also maintains its online blog where updates on its policies and information can be found. As with any other state agency, there is limited flexibility in terms of how to implement its regulations. There can be no assurance the implementation of any laws through the AOLB. In recent years a number of states have passed amendments to their law or regulations which would affect the effectiveness of these laws, but all to achieve a common goal of making sure the law in our state conforms to our state standards. The AOLB also regulates in a similar fashion to the Arizona Law School, the Institute of Human Rights & Disability, and the Arizona Public School System by granting, renewing, or reversing the provisions of the law, or allowing for change of policy and procedures for the purpose of enforcing that law without judicial review or any other such judicial review. The AOLB has no responsibility or authority for the effective enforcement of statutes found in the statute. The federal law enforcement system only regulates the extent to which an individual’s rights are respected in a given context; the AOLB has no role in that area. It is only applicable to the protection afforded to persons of a certain age by the United States Constitution (16 U.S.C. Sec. 13a-18a). The individual is not required to meet all of those requirements in order for the AOLB to hold him or her liable for any claim or liability. In our culture, it was difficult to understand the concept of “undermined liability.” Even though any claim or liability is protected by the law, these exceptions are not the only limitation that can be applied to the statute. If there is a “serious health or bodily injury” case, there can be no legal basis for a prosecution under the statutory provisions even though an injured spouse was responsible for the death or injury. In one state, for example, a state statute was adopted to invalidate a pregnant woman’s right to stay on the job. However, there were some exceptions that did not apply to this circumstance. In Illinois, for example, a statute was passed to bar certain public school teachers from firing or recusing from teaching students that are pregnant. However, the statute was challenged even though it was unconstitutional in the Illinois case (1939 Illinois, 576 F.2d 717). In Oklahoma, for example, the Board authorized the Board to impose a civil penalty upon a teacher involved in a civil litigation that had been commenced after he was reprimanded for violating his duty to school the child. This statute was also challenged in one Illinois court in 1977. At the time it was challenged, the Illinois school district would have been required to pay the school district $5.75 per hour for teacher health care, which was covered by that statute and was in all cases covered under the Illinois statute. In a similar situation, a similar state law was passed to address a non-smoking-related employment situation on public housing. The Board found that the statute did not apply and would be detrimental to public safety. In Arkansas, the Board proposed a similar statute. The Board recommended that the Board
A couple of years back, a Denver news reporter was subject to age discrimination and took his employer to court. David Minshall had been a reporter with a Denver television station for 17 years when owner McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company decided not to renew his contract in March 1997. At the time that they decied not to renew his contract, David was in his fifties. During the trial, McGraw-Hill presented evidence that its decision not to renew Davids contract was based on poor performance and not that of age. Specifically, they said he had poorly written scripts, tardiness, and unethically disclosing the identity of a confidential informant. Minshall then countered with a co-workers testimony that his scripts were no worse than any other reporters. He stated that he had never been told that his spelling or punctuality were problems or grounds for termination. The jury found that the television station violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and awarded David Minshall back pay, front pay and liquidated damages in excess of half a million dollars.
Larry Lorber, a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP had this to say about the ADEA.How is ADEA case law changing?As the law develops under the ADEA, youre finding more mature issues which havent been faced yet. These issues just havent come up because even though the ADEA is 35 years old, its a more limited statute: You cant discriminate on the basis of age. But now the United States has an aging workforce. Were also, in this economy, seeing the need to cut payrolls and how that applies to employees age. All those issues which never really had a face in many respects are