Corporations Point to Age Discrim. in Hiring by Feds

You might think it would be an embarrassment to our nation’s largest employer – the federal government – that corporate America is defending age discrimination in hiring by pointing out the U.S. government engages in the same behavior.

Most recently, the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC), an association of America’s 250 largest corporations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in an age discrimination case in which it opposed allowing older job applicants to file disparate impact lawsuits challenging broad-based discriminatory hiring practices.  If they are allowed to do so, the EEAC warns, numerous federal programs “most certainly will be impacted… ”

The EEAC goes on to cite various federal training, education and hiring programs that are closed to older workers, including the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, a residential program open to individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 who perform team-based national and community service, including disaster response and environmental stewardship. Members receive $4,000 for ten months of service, health benefits, $400 a month to pay for childcare and an educational award of $5,730.

Come to think of it, why can’t a 40-year-old join the Corps and dedicate a year of his/her life to community service for the same amount of remuneration?

Last May, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief in which it defended age discrimination in hiring by noting that even the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does it. The Chamber cited the EEOC Attorney Honor Program, which employs in “permanent” positions “third-year law student[s], “full-time graduate law students[s],” and “Judicial Law Clerk[s] whose clerkship must be [their] first significant legal employment following [their] graduation.”  The EEOC states on its web site that graduates of the Honor Program go on to serve as trial attorneys or Administrative Judges in the EEOC’s District Offices. The  EEOC program appears to have a disparate impact upon older workers because the vast majority of  law school students and graduates are under the age of 40.

The  EEOC is the federal agency that enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). [Read more…]

White House Summit For ‘New Generation’ of Workers

U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez announced this week that the White House will hold a “Summit on Worker Voice” on October 7 to “energize a new generation of Americans to come together and recognize the potential power of their voice at work.”

That’s great but … what about the “older generation” of  American workers?

The Obama administration is currently engaging in the most outrageous assault on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 since  2009. That’s the year that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that made it far more difficult to win a lawsuit alleging age discrimination than discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin and color.

Obama signed an executive order  in 2010 that permits federal agencies to discriminate against older workers.

More recently, Perez endorsed  the 100,000 Opportunities Initiative,  in which America’s leading corporations (Walmart, Starbucks, Microsoft, etc.) have announced plans to discriminate against older workers and hire ” youth”  aged 16 – 24 for tens of thousands of part-time and full-time jobs.  Neither Perez nor Starbucks, the main organizer of the initiative, have explained what legal justification exists for violating the plain the plain language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Good intentions cannot justify violating federal discrimination laws.

Reach for American Dream

Perez applauds early labor advocates  for the eight-hour work day and the weekend, noting these benefits were not inevitable but were “demanded by the working people of this nation … who wanted their chance to reach for the American dream.”

How can Perez and Obama justify making it more difficult for older workers to ‘reach for the American dream’?

[Read more…]

Age Discrimination Masquerades as Good Deed

Twenty-nine U.S. corporations so far  have signed onto an “initiative” to discriminate against older workers through the “100,000 Opportunities Initiative.”

The “employer led coalition,” which has received the blessing of the Obama administration,  blatantly violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

The Aspen Institute’s Forum for Community Solutions, which describes itself as an “intermediary” for the initiative in the hiring cities, issued a press release Wednesday stating that coalition employers will  “make hundreds of immediate job offers” to disadvantaged “youth” between the ages of 16 to 24 in the Chicago area next week.

The ADEA unambiguously prohibits using age as a consideration in hiring. Starbucks, a corporate leader of the coalition, and U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez   have failed to provide any legal justification for a hiring program that on its face violates the ADEA. Meanwhile, the media and the AARP have ignored this blatant demonstration of government-backed age discrimination by America’s top corporations.

In a press release, the Aspen Forum refers indirectly to the discriminatory nature of the program: “The participating companies are committed to diversity and equal employment opportunity, and the Opportunity Initiative does not prevent opportunities for older workers. Its purpose is to open up new opportunities that currently do not exist for some youth.”

The facts speak for themselves. Jobs will be designated for workers in a specific age group. Workers aged 40 and over are expressly excluded from applying for these jobs. That’s age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. [Read more…]

Starbucks’ De-Caffeinated Response to Age Discrim.

A spokesperson for Starbucks made a mystifying distinction Wednesday in an apparent effort to justify what appears to be blatant age discrimination in hiring under the recently announced 100,000 Opportunity Initiative.

Starbucks is spearheading an effort by more than a dozen major American corporations to hire 100,000 16- to 24- year olds by 2018.  Other partners include Walmart and Microsoft,

In an email, a spokesperson for Starbucks made a distinction between a collective hiring initiative and individual hiring decisions. “Age is not a factor in individual hiring decisions, and our 100,000 jobs for Opportunity Youth is incremental to our already ambitious hiring goals across the nation,” writes Jarryd (no last name provided)  of Starbucks Media Team.

Yeah but the Age Discrimination in Employment Act  (ADEA) makes no distinction between hiring 100,000 workers or hiring individual workers. The ADEA unambiguously states that it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire” any individual “because of such individual’s age.” Would any of these corporations defend a plan to hire 100,000 Christians on the grounds that it was also willing to hire a Muslim or Jew?

The corporations are couching the initiative as a well-intentioned effort to help young people who face systemic barriers to jobs and education. That’s irrelevant too. The ADEA prohibits age discrimination (with a few exceptions that are not applicable here). Does anyone doubt that good intentions were used to justify discriminatory laws throughout history that oppressed women and minorities?  Besides, older workers also face systemic barriers to jobs and education. As a result of age discrimination, a disproportionate number of women and minorities are dumped into an unwanted “early retirement” and decades of poverty or near poverty.

Starbucks also attempted to characterize the future hires as “youth.”   Jarryd said the 100,000 Opportunities Initiative “has the collective goal of engaging at least 100,000 Opportunity Youth.”  However, the dictionary defines youth as “adolescence”; the term is not applicable to young workers who are over the age of 18.

It is a laudable goal to help unemployed youth and young adults find jobs but age discrimination is inherently harmful to the fabric of American society. And did I forget to mention – it’s illegal!

Jarryd did not directly respond to my specific question – “What legal justification exists for engaging in age discrimination in hiring under the initiative?”

Meanwhile, queries to the media office of the U.S. Department of Labor  have been ignored.  Starbucks sent out a press release in which it quoted U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez as calling the initiative it a “win-win.” He also expressed hope that other employers would join in. In an open letter to Perez, I noted that by enacting the ADEA the U.S. Congress announced its clear preference for public policy initiative over discriminatory hiring. Did I mention that it is  illegal to discriminate on the basis of age?

The problem of age discrimination is so prevalent in American society that it is invisible.

If it’s not bad enough that the U.S. Secy. of Labor endorsed the initiative, not one media outlet even questioned the discriminatory nature of the program.

Meanwhile, groups that one might hope would express displeasure about this celebration of corporate age discrimination have been  silent,  including so-called advocacy groups like the AARP (the leading purveyor of Medigap insurance in the United States) and unions. Can it be that these groups are not knowledgeable about  the ADEA?   Is it  just that they don’t care?  I would argue that we all should care about age discrimination in employment because it  exacts a terrible toll on its victims and society picks up the tab in lost productivity and higher health and social welfare costs.  Moreover, epidemic and unaddressed age discrimination undermines the basic principle upon which America was founded – equal justice.