The Age Discrimination in Employment Act

The 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 person’s 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 attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

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 David’s 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-worker’s testimony that his scripts were no worse than any other reporter's. 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, you're finding more mature issues which haven't been faced yet. These issues just haven't come up because even though the ADEA is 35 years old, it's a more limited statute: You can't discriminate on the basis of age. But now the United States has an aging workforce. We're 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 now